(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Sugarcane research annual progress report 2009"

SUGARCANE RESEARCH 

Annual Progress Report 



2009 




4-. ft Z 

V- ' "i- v »- 

'.vt ■•' 



e3kr- *?Al ^1 ~ 




% 




SUGARCANE RESEARCH 

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 

2009 



No part of this report may be reproduced in any 
form without giving the complete source of 
information. 

This report is from 2009 only and should be 
regarded as preliminary. Complete research is 
reported in appropriate Louisiana Agricultural 
Experiment Station and Louisiana Cooperative 
Extension Service publications and/or other 
professional publications. 



LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL CENTER 

WILLIAM B. RICHARDSON 
CHANCELLOR AND CHALKLEY FAMILY ENDOWED CHAIR 

LOUISIANA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 

DAVID J. BOETHEL 

VICE CHANCELLOR AND DIRECTOR 

LOUISIANA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE 
PAUL D. COREIL, VICE CHANCELLOR AND DIRECTOR 



The LSU Agricultural Center provides equal opportunities in programs and employment. 






i\p)i\\ 




FOREWORD 



Research on sugarcane in the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station is an integral 
part of the LSU Agricultural Center's research-extension effort to provide the knowledge and 
technology base for efficient production and processing of sugarcane. Sugarcane research 
projects are led by scientists in the Sugar Research Station, Audubon Sugar Institute and the 
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, School of Plant, Environmental, and 
Soil Sciences, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Department of 
Entomology, and Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology. 

Members of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station maintain close working 
relations with colleagues in respective departments of the College of Agriculture and other 
colleges of the LSU Baton Rouge campus, the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, the 
Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service of the USDA, the 
American Sugar Cane League, and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. 

A major portion of the resources for production research is linked to the Sugar Research 
Station located at St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Processing research is linked to the Audubon Sugar 
Institute located at St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The Iberia Research Station helped to accomplish 
specific sugarcane research objectives in 2009. 

Important parts of the 2009 research effort were conducted on cooperating farms and in 
cooperating factories. These activities are important and must be continued. The cooperation of 
individual growers in conducting field research projects and financial support from the American 
Sugar Cane League are gratefully acknowledged. 






n 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/sugarcaneresearc2009loui 



Table of Contents 

Page# 

FOREWORD ii 

2009 SUMMARY 

Economic Importance of Louisiana Sugarcane Production in 2009 1 

Sugarcane Summary for Crop Year 2009 4 

VARIETY DEVELOPMENT 

An Overview of 2009 Activities in the LSU AgCenter Sugarcane Variety 

Development Program 7 

2009 Photoperiod and Crossing in the LSU AgCenter Sugarcane Variety 

Development Program 10 

Selections, Advancements, and Assignments of the LSU AgCenter Sugarcane 

Variety Development Program for 2009 22 

2009 Louisiana Sugarcane Variety Development Program Nursery and Infield Variety 

Trials 41 

2009 Louisiana "HoCP" and "Ho" Nursery & Infield Variety Trials 53 

2009 Louisiana Sugarcane Variety Development Program Outfield Variety Trials 64 

Sucrose Laboratory at the Sugar Research Station 81 

LAES Sugarcane Tissue Culture Laboratory 82 

The 2009 Louisiana Sugarcane Variety Survey 83 

Artificial Neural Network Models as a Decision Support Tool For Selection in 
Sugarcane: A Case Study Using Cane Yield in Seedling Populations 97 

The Effect of Naturally Occurring Off-Types on Sugar Yield and Yield Components 

In L 01-283 99 

Yield and Fiber Content of High Fiber Sugarcane Clones 101 

ENTOMOLOGY 

Small Plot Assessment of Insecticides against the Sugarcane Borer, 2009 102 

Small Plot Assessment of Wireworm Control in Sugarcane, 2009 103 

Evaluation of Aerial Insecticidal Control of the Mexican Rice Borer in Sugarcane, 

2009 104 

Oviposition Preference and Immature Development of the Mexican Rice Borer 

On Major Non-Crop Hosts 107 



in 



Small Plot Assessment of Insecticides against the Mexican Rice Borer 110 

PLANT PATHOLOGY 
Pathology Research Ill 

WEED CONTROL 

Eptam Use in Sugarcane: Incorporation Methods, Weed Control, and Crop Tolerance 118 

Investigation of Factors Affecting Suspension of Metribuzin DF in Spray Solution 122 

Nutsedge Control in Sugarcane at Planting and in Spring 124 

CULTURAL PRACTICES 

Billet Planting Research 128 

Long Term Effects of Post-Harvest Residue Management 132 

SOIL FERTILITY 

Soil Fertility Research in Sugarcane 135 

Efficacy of Nutri-Phite™ as a Photosynthesis Regulator in Sugarcane 139 

The Response of Sweet Sorghum to Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates 140 

Monitoring of Soil Salinity After Hurricane Storm Surges 141 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Effect of Residue Management on Atrazine Retention and Sugarcane Yield Grown on 

Commerce Soil 143 

PHYSIOLOGY 
Stalk Cold Tolerance of Commercial and Candidate Varieties 146 

ECONOMICS 
Sugarcane Economic Research in 2009 150 

PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS 
Ripener Update 152 

PUBLICATIONS IN 2009 159 



IV 



ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF LOUISIANA SUGARCANE PRODUCTION IN 2009 

Michael E. Salassi 1 , Michael A. Deliberto 1 , John Westra 1 and Benjamin L. Legendre 2 
department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, and 2 Audubon Sugar Institute 

Overview 

Louisiana is a major sugar producing state, accounting for approximately 42% of total 
cane sugar production and 19% of total sugar production in the United States. In 2009, 
sugarcane was grown on 417,869 acres (an increase of 16,434 acres or 4 percent above the 2008 
crop) by 495 producers (a decrease of 31 producers or 6 percent) in 22 Louisiana parishes. An 
estimated 390,708 acres (an increase of 15,366 acres or 4 percent) were available for harvest for 
sugar, assuming 6.5 percent of the total acres were used for seed cane purposes. The 1 1 
operating factories in the state processed nearly 14 million tons of cane (an increase of 1.7 
million tons or 14 percent greater than 2008 levels). In total, the state's sugar factories produced 
1 .48 million short tons of sugar (96 pol), which was an increase of 1 00,000 tons or 8 percent. 

The gross farm value of the 2009 sugarcane crop was $447 million for sugar and 
molasses (an increase of $89.4 million or 25 percent greater than the 2008 crop). The gross farm 
value reported above represents 60 percent of the value of the sugar and molasses produced, with 
the remaining 40 percent for processing and marketing, which amounted to $305.1 million. 
Therefore, the total value of the sugarcane crop to Louisiana producers, processors and landlords 
at the first processing level actually was $752 million, an increase of $150.3 million or 25 
percent when compared to the 2008 crop. The value ranks sugarcane as the leading agricultural 
row crop produced in Louisiana in terms of total crop market value. Using an economic 
multiplier in the range of 2.5-3.0, the sugarcane industry in 2009 has an estimated total impact on 
the state's economy of $1,880 to $2,256 billion. 

Louisiana's Rank is Total U.S. Sugar Production 

Refined white sugar in the United States is produced from two sources. Sugarbeets are 
processed directly into refined sugar, while sugarcane is first processed into raw sugar before 
being refined into white sugar. In 2009, 56.7 percent of total U.S. sugar production came from 
sugarbeets and 43.3 percent came from sugarcane. For the 2009/10 fiscal year, Louisiana 
accounted for approximately 43.8 percent of total U.S. cane sugar production and 18.9 percent of 
total U.S. sugar production. 

U.S. Sugar Production, 2008/09 and 2009/10 





2008/09 




2009/10 




(1,000 short tons, raw 


value) 


(1,000 short tons, raw value) 


Beet sugar production 


4,166 




4,500 


Cane sugar production 


3,318 




3,442 


Florida 


1,577 




1,665 


Hawaii 


192 




137 


Louisiana 


1,397 




1,500 


Texas 


152 




140 


Total U.S. sugar production 


7,484 




7,942 



Source: World Agricultural Outlook Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture, WASDE-480, March 2010. 



Louisiana Sugarcane Acreage, 2005-2009 



Acres of sugarcane 

460,000 



Source: Louisiana AgSummary 
LSU Agricultural Center 




2005 



2006 



2007 



2008 



2009 



I Total Sugarcane Acres E3 Acres Harvested for Sugar 



Louisiana Sugarcane Production, 2005-2009 

Tons of sugarcane 



Source. Louisiana AgSummary 
LSU Agricultural Center 




Louisiana Sugar Production, 2005-2009 

Tons of raw sugar 



500,000 



Source- Louisiana AgSummary 
LSU Agncultural Center 




2005 



2006 



2007 



2008 



2009 



2005 



2006 



2007 



2008 



2009 



2009 Louisiana Agricultural Summary Data for Sugarcane 



Parish 


Sugarcane 
Products 


Total 
Producers 


Units of Production 
(Yield per acre) 


Total 
Production 


Total 
Acres 


Total Crop 
Value 


Acadia 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


7 


5,200 
156 


9,245,600 
277,368 


1,778 


$2,156,023 
$196,515 


Ascension 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


16 


6,900 
207 


98,863,200 
2,965,896 


14,328 


$23,054,354 
$2,101,340 


Assumption 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


50 


7,480 
224 


305,602,880 
9,151,744 


40,856 


$71,264,911 
$6,484,017 


Avoyelles 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


12 


6,430 
193 


51,054,200 
1,532,420 


7,940 


$11,905,559 
$1,085,721 


Calcasieu 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


* 


3,700 
111 


8,850,400 
265,512 


2,392 


$2,063,865 
$188,115 


Evangeline 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


* 


5,400 
162 


334,800 
10,044 


62 


$78,074 
$7,116 


Iberia 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


85 


6,900 
207 


397,964,400 
11,938,932 


57,676 


$92,803,109 
$8,458,742 


Iberville 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


31 


8,150 
245 


291,207,650 
8,754,095 


35,731 


$67,908,022 
$6,202,283 


Jefferson Davis 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


* 


4,995 
150 


36,538,425 
1,097,250 


7,315 


$8,520,560 
$777,402 


Lafayette 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


25 


7,200 
216 


79,704,000 
2,391,120 


11,070 


$18,586,534 
$1,694,110 


Lafourche 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


32 


7,072 
212 


195,045,760 
5,846,960 


27,580 


$45,483,598 
$4,142,576 


Pointe Coupee 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


30 


8,230 
247 


271,721,680 
8,154,952 


33,016 


$63,364,001 
$5,777,790 


Rapides 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


20 


7,020 
211 


68,178,240 
2,049,232 


9,712 


$15,898,791 
$1,451,882 


St. Charles 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


* 


6,7340 
202 


9,178,442 
275,326 


1,363 


$2,140,362 
$195,069 


St. James 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


26 


6,575 
197 


159,161,025 
4,768,779 


24,207 


$37,115,476 
$3,378,683 


St. John 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


14 


6,800 
204 


54,060,000 
1,621,800 


7,950 


$12,606,495 
$1,149,047 


St. Landry 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


6 


5,550 
167 


37,839,900 
1,138,606 


6,818 


$8,824,057 
$806,703 


St. Martin 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


55 


7,050 
212 


210,661,050 
6,334,772 


29,881 


$49,124,998 
$4,488,191 


St. Mary 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


42 


7,000 
210 


312,172,000 
9,365,160 


44,596 


$72,796,793 
$6,635,223 


Terrebonne 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


11 


6,807 
204 


66,810,705 
2,002,360 


9,815 


$15,579,889 
$1,418,674 


Vermilion 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


26 


6,106 
183 


180,957,416 
5,423,388 


29,636 


$42,198,274 
$3,842,474 


West Baton Rouge 


Raw sugar (lbs) 
Molasses (gal) 


10 


7,800 
234 


110,346,600 
3,310,398 


14,147 


$25,732,220 
$2,345,419 




Total Sugarcane Crop Value 








$752,032,988 



Source: 2009 Louisiana Summary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, LSU Agricultural Center. 



SUGARCANE SUMMARY FOR CROP YEAR 2009 

Benjamin L. Legendre 
Audubon Sugar Institute 



In 2009, sugarcane was grown on 417,869 acres (an increase of 16,434 acres or 4.1% 
when compared to the 2008 crop) by 495 producers (a decrease of 31 producers or 5.9%) in 22 
Louisiana parishes (counties). An estimated 390,708 acres (an increase of 15,366 acres or 4.1%) 
were available for harvest for sugar, assuming 6.5% of the total acres were used for seed cane 
purposes. 

The 1 1 operating factories processed 13,976,970 tons of cane (an increase of 1,717,132 
tons or 14.0% when compared to 2008). This is a decrease of one factory that operated in 2008 
with the closure of the St. James facility operated by Louisiana Green Fuels. Further, the 
Lacassine syrup factory, also operated by Louisiana Green Fuels, did not operate in 2009. All 
total, the 1 1 factories produced 1,477,749 short tons of sugar (96 pol)(an increase of 104,710 
tons or 7.6%). Accordingly, the average yield of cane produced per total acre was 33.4 tons (an 
increase of 2.9 tons or 9.5%). The average yield of cane produced from each harvested acre 
amounted to 35.8 tons (an increase of 3.1 tons or 9.5%). The average sugar recovery at the 1 1 
factories was 10.2% or 204 pounds of sugar (96 pol) per ton of cane; this was a decrease of 20 
pounds of sugar per ton of cane or a decrease of 8.9% when compared to the 2008 crop. The 
yield of commercially recoverable sugar produced per total acre averaged 6,814 pounds (a 
decrease of 18 pounds or 0.2%). And the yield of commercially recoverable sugar produced per 
harvested acre was approximately 7,303 pounds (a decrease of 22 pounds or 0.3%). 

The gross farm value of the 2009 sugarcane crop was $446,973,544 for sugar and 
molasses (an increase of $74,178,970 or 19.9 % when compared to the 2008 crop). The gross 
farm value reported above represents 60% of the value of the sugar and molasses produced, with 
the remaining 40% for processing and marketing which amounted to $297,982,362. Therefore, 
the total value of the sugarcane crop to Louisiana producers, processors and landlords at the first 
processing level was actually $744,955,906, an increase of $123,631,616 or 19.9% when 
compared to the 2008 crop. Sugarcane still ranks first in value amongst the State's row crops. 
Although overall yield of sugar per acre was, undoubtedly, impacted as a result of the wet 
harvest, the lower than expected yield of recoverable sugar per ton of cane was partially offset by 
the tremendous increase in the yield of cane per acre. The 35.8-ton cane yield was the second 
best in the State's history and the yield of sugar per acre was third best. Further, the total tons 
processed and the total amount of sugar produced were both fifth best in the State's history even 
though the total number of acres harvested in those years was mostly more than harvested in 
2009. There has been a gradual trend each year towards fewer acres planted to sugarcane in 
Louisiana since 2000 when there were approximately 496,000 acres; however, the overall 
acreage has been fairly stable for the past three years. The acreage figures reported by USDA- 
FSA were slightly higher in 2009 as compared to 2008 because of a new GPS mapping system. 
Notwithstanding, the fewer acres reported in recent years can be attributed to urban 
encroachment, a switch to other crops, especially grain in the Northern region of the sugarcane 
belt due to higher commodity prices for grain. However, with increased sugar prices, there is the 
possibility that some of these acres lost to grain crops might return to producing cane; only time 

4 



will tell. 

The 2009 sugarcane variety census showed that Louisiana producers continued to switch 
to the newer varieties, namely HoCP 96-540 (50% of the planted area), L 97-128 (17%), L 99- 
226 (1 1%) and L 99-233 (6%) while dramatically decreasing the area planted to LCP 85-384 
(91% in 2004 to only 6% in 2009), For the most part, producers were very satisfied with the 
performance of the newer varieties, especially HoCP 96-540, L 97-128 and HoCP 00-950. 
Although it was expected that cane tonnage would be disappointing in 2009 because of the late 
planting of the crop in 2008 and the early summer drought, in reality, average cane tonnage 
exceeded all expectations. In fact, the 35.8-ton average yield per harvested acre was second only 
to the 37.0-ton average yield obtained in 1999. Undoubtedly, the dry harvest conditions of 2008 
and the warmer than average winter helped to establish good stubble cane stands in the spring of 
2009. Weather records showed that the average temperatures across the sugarcane belt were 
average to above average for every month of the year with the exception of November and 
December (Louisiana Office of State Climatology). On the other hand, rainfall was below 
average for seven months and above average for five months. Rainfall during the period October 
through December when most of the crop is harvested was over 10 in. above normal which made 
for a very difficult harvest. Sugar yield at the beginning of the harvest was considerably lower 
than expected due to the excessive rainfall which increased extraneous matter, to include field 
soil (mud), in the harvested sugarcane. For every one percent increase in extraneous matter there 
is a corresponding loss of three pounds of sugar per ton of cane. The situation only worsened in 
December when rainfall amounts throughout the sugarcane belt exceeded record levels. It was 
reported that one factory had to cease milling operations because of more than a foot of water 
inside the mill caused by more than 10 in of rainfall during a six-hour period. 

Although rainfall was mostly deficient from January through July, the cane responded to 
late summer and early fall rains to produce one of the best crops on record, tonnage- wise. For the 
most part, there was above normal rainfall during the harvest season that reduced the overall 
quality of harvested cane. With the above normal rainfall in October and the heavier than 
expected cane tonnage, the cane in many fields was lodged (recumbent). The late growth and 
lodged conditions lead to later maturity and lower sucrose content at the start of the harvest 
although the maturity of the crop improved during the harvest. The usage of the chemical 
ripener glyphosate was, undoubtedly, reduced because of the lodged conditions of the crop; 
however, it was reported by the factories that cane treated with ripener was superior in yield of 
recoverable sugar per ton of cane than cane not treated with ripener. In many cases, producers 
that treated cane with ripener on clay (heavy) soils had to delay the harvest in those areas until 
later in the crop when drier conditions prevailed. The only window of drier weather generally 
occurred from early to mid November. 

Most of the 1 1 factories processed record cane tonnages during the 2009 harvest which 
meant that all operated into January 2010. From January 5 through January 14, most weather 
stations in south Louisiana reported night temperatures below freezing and on January 9 through 
January 12 the low temperatures recorded were 20°F or below at several reporting stations 
(Louisiana Office of State Climatology). Fortunately, most of the cane had been harvested by 
January 12. It was noted that freeze cracks occurred in most cane remaining in the field during 
this period which would normally mean that significant deterioration in cane quality would have 
occurred within one week following such a freeze. 

5 



Because of the high cost of fertilizer in general, many producers used less nitrogen in 
2009 than was used in past years although recommendations have stressed that maximum yields 
of sugar per ton of cane and per acre could be achieved with lower rates of nitrogen. 
Undoubtedly, the lower rates of nitrogen helped to improve the maturity of the crop even though 
cane continued to grow into October and ultimately increased the yield of recoverable sugar per 
ton of cane later in the harvest. Producers also continued to apply less phosphorus and 
potassium in 2009 due to the high costs. Research data have shown that little or no response in 
yield of cane or sugar per acre could be expected when used even though soil tests indicated that 
there was an insufficient level of these nutrients in their soils. 

Although the pricing period is not completed for the 2009 crop, sugar prices have risen 
sharply in recent months with the average predicted value for raw sugar at $23.10/cwt (an 
increase of $2.90/cwt or 14.4% when compared to the 2008 crop). Molasses prices have 
remained high and should average about $120/short ton at 79.5 Brix or $0.7018/gal (an increase 
of $0.023/gal or 4% when compared to the 2008 crop). 



PLANT COMMODITIES - 2009 

Commodity Gross Farm Income Value Added Total Value 

Sugarcane 1 $446,973,544 $297,982,362 $744,955,906 

1 Includes raw sugar and molasses 



AN OVERVIEW OF 2009 ACTIVITIES IN THE LSU AGCENTER 
SUGARCANE VARIETY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

Kenneth Gravois 
Sugar Research Station 

The primary objective of the LSU AgCenter Sugarcane Variety Development Program is 
to contribute to the profitability of the Louisiana sugarcane industry by developing improved 
sugarcane varieties. 

Sugarcane variety development in the LSU AgCenter is carried out by a team of scientists 
(Table 1). The LSU AgCenter sugarcane breeding team and the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USD A) sugarcane breeding team work independently yet cooperatively to produce 
"L" and "HoCP or Ho" varieties, respectively. The best varieties from each program are brought 
together for evaluation at the nursery, infield, and outfield test locations. Outfield testing is 
conducted by personnel of the LSU AgCenter, the USDA, and the American Sugar Cane League. 
Seed increase is carried out by the American Sugar Cane League and begins when varieties are 
introduced to the outfield testing stage. The cooperative efforts of sugarcane breeding are done 
in accordance with the provisions of the "Three- Way Agreement of 2007." After yield data for 
one crop cycle (plant-cane, first stubble, and second stubble) are collected in the outfield testing 
stage, those varieties that show promise are released for commercial production. 

Table 1. Members of the LSU AgCenter Sugarcane Variety Development Team in 2009. 



Team Member Budgetary Unit 



Responsibility 



Kenneth Gravois 
Keith Bischoff 
Collins Kimbeng 
Gene Reagan 
Jeff Hoy 
Jim Griffin 
Sonny Viator 
Michael Pontif 
Gert Hawkins 
Dexter Fontenot 
David Sexton 
Joel Hebert 



Sugar Research Station 
Sugar Research Station 
School of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences 

Entomology 

Plant Pathology & Crop Physiology 

School of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences 

Iberia Research Station 
Sugar Research Station 
Sugar Research Station 
Sugar Research Station 
Sugar Research Station 
Sugar Research Station 



Program Leader 
Selection 

Molecular Breeding 
Insect Resistance 
Disease Resistance 
Herbicide Tolerance 
Variety Testing 
Selection, Variety Testing 
Sucrose Laboratory 
Photoperiod and Crossing 
Outfield Testing 
Farm Manager 



Photoperiod treatments to induce flowering began on May 3 1 and continued until 
September 10 th . On September 1, 2009, repairs due to Hurricane Gustav were completed to the 
crossing house and the first cross was made that day. Seed inventories were low due to limited 

7 



crossing in 2008. Leading up to flowering, temperatures during initiation were conducive to 
flowering, which resulted in exceptionally good flowering in 2009. The first cross was made on 
September 1 , 2009 with a total of 635 crosses for the year. Germination tests were conducted in 
November and December, 2009. Seed production for 2009 was excellent based on germination 
tests, with a record 842,055 true seed produced. 

A total of 76,213 seedlings from 132 crosses of the 2004 (31), 2005 (8), 2006 (41), 2007 
(17), and 2008 (48) crossing series were planted in the field in the April of 2009. A total of 
73,953 seedlings survived transplanting. In addition, seedlings were also planted in a cross 
appraisal trial. Selection will be carried out in 2010 when these seedlings are in the first stubble 
crop. 

In the fall of 2009, individual selection was practiced on 65,348 first-stubble seedlings 
that represented the 2007 crossing series. Family selection (top 92.1% of the population 
representing 1 1 6 crosses in 2009) was utilized based on information from the cross appraisal 
study and assessment of the seedling populations. Seedling selection was done in early 
September with fairly erect crop conditions). A total of 1,909 clones (2.9% selection rate) were 
selected and planted to establish the first-line trials. Incidence of smut and rust were high in 
seedling populations. After field selection, these single stool selections were evaluated for Brix. 

Established procedures were used to advance superior clones of the 2006 crossing series 
from first-line trials to second-line trials (352 clones) and of the 2005 crossing series from 
second-line trials to increase trials (166 clones). Preliminary ratings for cane yield and plant type 
were done in August. Clones with acceptable ratings were further evaluated for lodging and/or 
broken tops, borer damage, presence of disease, presence of pith/tube, and Brix/sugar per ton. 
Lodging in 2009 was extensive due high rainfall in September and October. Pith levels were 
relatively low; smut and rust levels were relatively high. 

The best 35 experimental varieties from the 2004 crossing series were assigned 
permanent variety designations in the fall of 2009. Newly assigned varieties were entered in 
replicated nursery trials at two locations (Sugar Research Station and USDA-ARS Ardoyne 
Farm). The nursery at the Iberia Research Station could not be planted in 2009 due to wet 
conditions. "L", "HoCP, or Ho" varieties of the 2009 assignment series were exchanged in the 
fall of 2009 to plant cooperative infield and nursery tests the following year. 

Experimental varieties were replanted in infield and nursery tests (7 varieties of the 2008 
assignment series), introduced to the outfield tests (two varieties of the 2007 assignment series), 
and planted in outfield tests (experimental varieties L 03-371, HoCP 04-838, HoCP 05-902, Ho 
05-961, Ho 06-537, and Ho 06-563). Breeding personnel assisted Dr. Jeff Hoy and Dr. Gene 
Reagan to enter experimental varieties in the sugarcane smut and sugarcane borer resistance 
trials, respectively. 

In 2009, rust continued to be seen in high levels in LCP 85-384 and Ho 95-988 
throughout the growing season, especially in the plant-cane crop. Rust levels also seemed to be 
increasing in L 99-226 and L 01-283. Smut and leaf scald were prevalent in 2009. Pith in 
experimental varieties was somewhat below average compared to other years. Sugarcane borer 
infestations were extremely light at the Sugar Research Station. In fact, no insecticide 
applications were made at the Sugar Research Station in 2009, and bored internodes were few. 

8 



The growing conditions during the summer were only fair because of dry weather. Heavy 
rainfall in early September and October delayed some plantings and made harvesting the crop 
difficult. November weather was drier, but rains resumed in December. 

The decision regarding the further testing and seed increase of candidate varieties was 
determined at the Variety Advancement Committee meeting. The 2009 meeting was held on 
August 7 th at the American Sugar Cane League office in Thibodaux, Louisiana. 

On August 28, 2009, the representative of the Variety Release Committee decided to 
release L 01-299. The release was made without a distribution of seed from the League's 
secondary increase stations. 

Progress in the LSU AgCenter Sugarcane Variety Development Program would not be 
possible without the financial support of state funds from the LSU AgCenter and the Louisiana 
sugar industry through the American Sugar Cane League and the cooperation of the USDA-ARS 
Sugarcane Research Laboratory. 

Table 1. Number of "L" varieties by assignment series for each stage of testing in 2009. 



Assignment 
Series 


Stage of Testing 


Number of 

experimental 

varieties 


L2003 


Outfield - Replanted and harvested as plantcane, first stubble, 
and second stubble 


1 


L2004 


Outfield - Replanted and harvested as plantcane and first 
stubble 

Off-station nurseries and infield - 3 rd stubble harvested 





L2005 


Outfield - Replanted and harvested as plantcane 
On-station nurseries - 3 r stubble harvested 
Off-station nurseries and infield - 2" stubble harvested. 





L2006 


Outfield - Planted 

On-station nurseries - 2 stubble harvested 

Off-station nurseries and infield - 1 st stubble harvested 





L2007 


Outfield - Introduced 

On-station nurseries - 1 st stubble harvested 

Off-station nurseries and infield - plantcane harvested. 


2 


L2008 


On-station nurseries - plantcane harvested 
Off-station nurseries and infield planted 


7 


L2009 


Assignment 

On-station nurseries planted 


35 



2009 PHOTOPERIOD AND CROSSING IN THE LSU AGCENTER SUGARCANE 
VARIETY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

Dexter Fontenot and Kenneth Gravois 
Sugar Research Station 



Photoperiod and crossing are the first stages in the LSU Agcenter's Sugarcane Variety 
Development Program. For the release of new varieties to be productive, success must first be 
achieved at photoperiod and crossing. Proper photoperiod induction in addition to proper 
hybridization techniques are key factors for the production of viable seed belonging to viable 
crosses. Viable crosses are the optimum and most desirable combinations that will be advanced 
to the seedling stage of the Sugarcane Variety Development Program. In order to accomplish 
viable crosses, the seed must be viable or alive to produce adequate germination. This seed will 
then be advanced to the seedling stage of the Sugarcane Variety Development Program. 

The crossing house at the Sugar Research Station was rendered useless due to Hurricane 
Gustav in 2008. Repairs were completed in early 2009 that replace glass panes with insulated 
acrylic panels that had UV blocking capabilities. This allows for much cooler conditions within 
the crossing house and worked exceptionally well during the 2009 crossing season. 

Cuttings of potential parent varieties used for the 2009 crossing season were planted in 
the fall of 2008. After establishing the plants from the cuttings, the plants were fertilized 
biweekly with a 200 ppm solution of Peter's 20-20-20. In late January 2009, the cuttings were 
then transferred to can culture. In April, the cans were moved from the greenhouse to the 
photoperiod rail carts. Soluble fertilizer applications were continued on a biweekly basis. 
Fertilization was discontinued in early- to mid-May to condition the plants for floral induction. 
Two additional applications of dry granular fertilizer (8-24-24, one Tbs/can) were applied to the 
cans during July and August. A reduced nitrogen ratio makes a higher C:N ratio, which is more 
desirable for the ease of flowering. 

Natural lighting and six light-tight chambers were used for photoperiod treatments. To 
prevent overwhelming the crossing facilities, two flowering peaks were planned for September 
23 and October 8 although these two flowering peaks can be advanced or delayed because of 
certain climatic factors. Records of varietal flowering, past photoperiod response, and pollen 
production were used to determine the most appropriate photoperiod treatment for each variety. 
The first photoperiod treatments began on May 30. All photoperiod treatments (time from 
artificial sunrise to natural sunset) were initiated with a minimum of 34 consecutive days of 12 l A 
hours of constant day length. After the initial constant photoperiod days, day length was 
shortened by one minute per day. Treatments differed by the number of days with constant day 
length and the date on which the decline of photoperiod was initiated. All photoperiod 
treatments were discontinued on September 10, 2009, when natural day length was 12 Vz hours 
and decreasing. 

Photoperiod treatments require pulling the carts out of the photoperiod bays at their 
appropriate time each morning to receive full sunlight. On certain days when the weather was 
severe, the carts were pushed back into the photoperiod chambers to protect the parental varieties 

10 



from wind damage. The doors were partially opened to allow natural light to enter the chambers. 

Flowering percentage of total stalks were average on the photoperiod carts in 2009 
(Tables 1-2). Total flowering percentage for the six bays was 60%, which was comprised from 
1,543 stalks of which 932 produce tassels. Although the flowering percentage was excellent in 
2009, successful seed production is comprised of a multitude of factors. An adequate 
germination rate provided the Variety Development Program with sufficient seed production. In 
2009 as in previous years, seedlings were produced from hybridization techniques that used 
sugarcane yield components, borer resistance, and disease resistance as some of the criteria to 
determine which breeding clones were most compatible. 

Close attention was made once again to maintain high relative humidity within the 
crossing greenhouse; high relative humidity has been proven in past studies to increase seed set. 
High relative humidity is maintained with the use of a misting system that has been installed 
inside of the crossing greenhouse. High temperatures in the crossing house can also result in 
poor seed set as temperatures in excess of 95°F have adverse effects on pollen viability. 
Temperatures between 85-95 degrees were maintained in the greenhouse along with 85-98% 
relative humidity. 

The flowering season in 2009 began during the last week of August. The normal time 
frame for first flowering can be as early as the last week of August or as late as the third week of 
September. There can be a slight deviation for first flower due to temperature during the 
photoperiod induction phase, varietal characteristics, and the photoperiod treatments. Crossing 
began on September 1 and ended on October 30, 2009. A total of 932 tassels of 83 clones were 
used to produce 635 crosses. Germination rate was estimated based on the germination of 0.5 g 
of seed that was germinated under greenhouse conditions in early December. A total of 842,160 
viable seed were produced in 2009. A total of 5 12,800 seed were produced from bi-parental 
crosses, and 228,002 seed were produced from polycrosses (Table 3). 



11 



Table 1 . Summary of the 2009 photoperiod treatments for the LSU AgCenter's sugarcane variety development program. 











Date 


















Days of 


Photoperiod 






Mean 










Treatment 


Constant 


Decline 


Days of Declining 


Flowering 


Total 


Percent 


Bay 


Cart 


Start Date 


Photoperiod 


Started 


Photoperiod 


Date 


Stalks 


Flowered 












Peakl 


Peak 2 








1 


A 


16-Jun 


44 


30-Jul 


72 


87 


282±1 


98 


58 


1 


B 


16-Jun 


44 


30-Jul 


72 


87 


281±1 


95 


47 


1 


C 


16-Jun 


44 


30-Jul 


72 


87 


275±1 


83 


59 


2 


A 


16-Jun 


34 


30-Jul 


72 


87 


280±1 


96 


61 


2 


B 


16-Jun 


34 


30-Jul 


72 


87 


281±2 


90 


44 


2 


C 


16-Jun 


34 


30-Jul 


72 


87 


279±2 


80 


28 


3 


A 


30-May 


37 


6- Jul 


87 


102 


265±1 


86 


83 


3 


B 


30-May 


37 


6- Jul 


87 


102 


258±2 


80 


70 


3 


C 


30-May 


37 


6- Jul 


87 


102 


256±2 


85 


65 


4 


A 


30-May 


37 


6- Jul 


87 


102 


262±1 


93 


80 


4 


B 


30-May 


37 


6-Jul 


87 


102 


256±1 


91 


59 


4 


C 


30-May 


37 


6- Jul 


87 


102 


259±2 


79 


54 


5 


A 


30-May 


36 


10- Jul 


82 


97 


264±1 


79 


76 


5 


B 


30-May 


36 


10- Jul 


82 


97 


265±2 


84 


50 


5 


C 


30-May 


36 


10- Jul 


82 


97 


261±2 


79 


58 


6 


A 


30-May 


41 


10- Jul 


82 


97 


268±2 


81 


68 


6 


B 


30-May 


41 


10- Jul 


82 


97 


263±1 


83 


66 


6 


C 


30-May 


41 


10- Jul 


82 


97 


265±2 


81 


60 


Table 2. 


Summary of can, variety, and flower information on bays 1-6 subjected to photoperiod treatments 






Varieties 


Cans Cans with Total stalks Total 


Mean stalks 


Mean 


Mean 


Mean days to 


used in 


with tassels 


tassels 


per can 


tassels per pollen 




flower§ 


crossin 


g 


stalks 








cant 


rating! 


























83 




324 


272 1543 


932 


4.76±.98 


3.42±1.43 5.21±2.1f 


71.77±11.13 



t Based upon cans with tassels. 

% Rating of 1 to 4 being male and 5 to 9 being female. 

§ Days from decline date to flowering. 



Table 3. Summary of 2009 crossing and seed production 



Type of 




Sum of Seed 


Mean Seed Production 


Mean Seed Production Per 


Mean Germination 


Cross 


Crosses 


Production 


Per Cross 


Female Tassel 


Per Gram Seed 




Biparental 


411 


512,800 


1248±1517 


1248±1517 


83±71 


Polycross 


132 


228,002 


1727±1918 


1727±1918 


95±76 


Self 


92 


101,358 


1101±1750 


1101±1750 


68±82 


Total 


635 


842,160 


1326±1653 


1326±1653 


88±73 



12 



Table 4. Varietal flowering summary in 2009 in the photoperiod bays 

















Percent 




Days of Constant 


First Flower 


Mean Days 


Pollen 


Total Stalk 


Total 


Flowering 


Variety 


Photoperiod 


Date 


to Flower 


Rating 


Number 


Flowers 


Stalks 



CP83-644 


38 


271 


95±4 


7 


20 


9 


45 


HO0 1-564 


40 


259 


78±3 


6±1 


11 


10 


91 


HO05-961 


38 


266 


91±3 


6±1 


28 


12 


43 


HO06-523 


40±1 


259 


84±2 


4±1 


15 


10 


67 


HO06-530 


39±1 


273 


86±2 


7±1 


14 


7 


50 


HO06-537 


39±1 


266 


87±2 


7±1 


12 


8 


67 


HO06-562 


41 


261 


76±1 


6 


30 


22 


73 


HO06-563 


37±1 


254 


71±1 


6±1 


9 


9 


100 


HO07-604 


42±1 


282 


91 


8 


9 


1 


11 


HO07-612 


43 


294 


83 


8 


6 


1 


17 


HO07-613 


40±1 


261 


87±10 


5±1 


17 


4 


24 


HO07-617 


40±1 


275 


75±5 


8 


16 


4 


25 


H095-988 


39±1 


261 


75±1 


4 


19 


16 


84 


HOCPOO-930 


40±1 


257 


75±4 


6±1 


8 


6 


75 


HOCP00-950 


39 


254 


69±1 


8 


60 


54 


90 


HOCP01-517 


39±1 


266 


82±2 


4 


15 


9 


60 


HOCP0 1-523 


39±1 


257 


81±5 


4±1 


22 


6 


27 


HOCP02-610 


40±1 


254 


70±1 


7 


24 


21 


88 


HOCP02-618 


40±1 


261 


82±7 


4±1 


14 


5 


36 


HOCP02-623 


38 


259 


75±1 


6 


17 


14 


82 


HOCP04-838 


40 


244 


61±1 


7 


46 


38 


83 


HOCP04-847 


39±1 


268 


83±3 


7 


25 


10 


40 


HOCP05-902 


40±1 


261 


73±2 


8 


16 


7 


44 


HOCP05-904 


38±1 


259 


80±5 


3 


10 


5 


50 


HOCP05-918 


38±1 


261 


80±2 


5±1 


9 


6 


67 


HOCP07-600 


43 








5 






HOCP07-615 


36 


257 


75±2 


5±1 


4 


4 


100 


HOCP85-845 


39±1 


261 


81±5 


4±1 


24 


6 


25 


HOCP9 1-552 


40±1 


244 


57 


3 


20 


17 


85 


HOCP92-618 


39±1 


254 


77±5 


5±1 


19 


10 


53 


HOCP92-624 


40±1 


246 


62±2 


7 


24 


23 


96 


HOCP92-648 


39±1 


254 


68±1 


8 


17 


9 


53 


HOCP96-540 


40 


254 


72±1 


4 


57 


49 


86 


HOCP96-561 


40±1 


261 


79±2 


7±1 


17 


16 


94 


HOCP97-606 


41±1 


282 


94±3 


8±1 


7 


2 


29 


HOCP97-609 


40±1 


259 


72±1 


3 


13 


6 


46 


L0 1-283 


39 


261 


84±1 


4 


62 


40 


65 


L0 1-299 


39 


248 


65±1 


3 


70 


61 


87 


L01-315 


42±1 


268 


67±3 


7 


9 


5 


56 


L02-325 


40 








11 






L03-371 


39 


303 


112 


8 


20 


1 


5 


L05-448 


40±1 


257 


70±2 


5±1 


21 


16 


76 


L05-457 


41±1 


244 


61±1 


8 


29 


28 


97 


L06-001 


37 


248 


68±1 


4 


16 


15 


94 


L06-038 


40±1 


251 


67±1 


4 


27 


22 


81 


L07-043 


38±1 


282 


95 


8 


7 


1 


14 



13 



Table 4. Continue. 

















Percent 


1 


Days of Constant 


First Flower 


Mean Days 


Pollen 


Total Stalk 


Total 


Flowering 


Variety 


Photoperiod 


Date 


to Flower 


Rating 


Number 


Flowers 


Stalks 


L07-068 


41 








10 






L08-075 


40 








5 






L08-076 


42 


254 


68±3 


5±1 


11 


8 


73 


L08-077 


42 


299 


108 


8 


11 


2 


18 


L08-078 


43 


282 


71 


7 


6 


1 


17 


L08-079 


42±1 


282 


90±1 


8 


9 


3 


33 


L08-080 


43 








5 






L08-081 


43 








6 






L08-082 


43 


275 


66±1 


8 


4 


4 


100 


L08-084 


42±1 


261 


73±4 


8 


8 


4 


50 


L08-085 


43 


275 


71±3 


6 


4 


3 


75 


L08-086 


42 








12 






L08-088 


43 








6 






L08-089 


43 


268 


66±7 


3 


5 


5 


100 


L08-090 


40±1 


243 


58±2 


7 


10 


4 


40 


L08-091 


43 








5 






L08-092 


43 








11 






L08-093 


40±1 


299 


90±1 


5±1 


12 


4 


33 


L08-094 


43 


282 


75±4 


7±1 


5 


2 


40 


L08-095 


43 


273 


65±3 


6±2 


10 


2 


20 


L94-424 


40 








13 






L94-426 


40±1 


257 


75±1 


6±1 


19 


9 


47 


L94-428 


38 


254 


76±3 


4 


20 


12 


60 


L94-432 


40 


259 


81±6 


4±1 


10 


8 


80 


L94-433 


40±1 


268 


86±4 


7±1 


16 


6 


38 


L97-128 


41 


248 


66±1 


7 


43 


33 


77 


L98-207 


39 


248 


77±4 


5±1 


41 


11 


27 


L98-209 


40±1 


251 


71±4 


8 


17 


4 


24 


L99-226 


40 


248 


67±1 


3 


61 


46 


75 


L99-233 


40 


244 


64±1 


3 


65 


56 


86 


LCP81-010 


40±1 


246 


66±1 


7 


25 


20 


80 


LCP85-384 


39 


254 


77±2 


3 


57 


33 


58 


LCP86-454 


38±1 


259 


78±5 


4±1 


13 


3 


23 


N-27 


37 


254 


72±3 


7 


15 


7 


47 


TUCCP77-042 


42 


266 


80±1 


7±1 


10 


9 


90 


USO 1-040 


39±1 


259 


75±2 


4±1 


9 


7 


78 


US08-9504 


40 


266 


75 


8 


3 


1 


33 



14 



Table 5. Crosses and seed made 


in 2009 sorted bv 


cross number. 










Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


XL09-001 


L05-457 


L99-233 


2148 


XL09-049 


L06-038 


L06-038 





XL09-002 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP9 1-552 


2189 


XL09-050 


L06-001 


L99-226 


268 


XL09-003 


LCP81-010 


L99-233 


5420 


XL09-051 


L98-209 


L99-226 


867 


XL09-004 


HOCP92-624 


L99-233 


1551 


XL09-052 


L05-457 


L99-226 


1688 


XL09-005 


HOCP04-838 


L99-233 


3009 


XL09-053 


HOCP04-838 


L99-226 


614 


XL09-006 


L99-233 


L99-233 


1919 


XL09-054 


L99-226 


L99-226 


324 


XL09-007 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP9 1-552 


1552 


XL09-055 


L06-001 


L99-233 


195 


XL09-008 


HOCP92-624 


HOCP9 1-552 


4208 


XL09-056 


HOCP04-838 


L99-233 


645 


XL09-009 


L05-457 


HOCP9 1-552 


2102 


XL09-057 


L97-128 


L99-233 


1457 


XL09-010 


HOCP9 1-552 


HOCP9 1-552 


3335 


XL09-058 


L99-233 


L99-233 


2717 


XL09-011 


HOCP92-624 


L99-233 


2622 


XL09-059 


LO 1-299 


09P2 


1610 


XL09-012 


HOCP04-838 


L99-233 


1133 


XL09-060 


L97-128 


09P2 


840 


XL09-013 


L05-457 


L99-233 


5844 


XL09-061 


L99-226 


09P2 


2306 


XL09-014 


L05-457 


HOCP9 1-552 


2140 


XL09-062 


L99-233 


09P2 


713 


XL09-015 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP9 1-552 


4948 


XL09-063 


LO 1-299 


09P3 


1552 


XL09-016 


L06-001 


LO 1-299 


462 


XL09-064 


L97-128 


09P3 


894 


XL09-017 


HOCP04-838 


LO 1-299 


1238 


XL09-065 


L99-226 


09P3 


372 


XL09-018 


LCP81-010 


LO 1-299 


1510 


XL09-066 


L99-233 


09P3 


5380 


XL09-019 


L05-457 


LO 1-299 


687 


XL09-067 


HO06-563 


HOCP96-540 


1549 


XL09-020 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


39 


XL09-068 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP96-540 


1538 


XL09-021 


HOCP92-624 


L98-207 


4917 


XL09-069 


HOCP92-618 


HOCP96-540 


548 


XL09-022 


LCP81-010 


L98-207 





XL09-070 


HOCP92-624 


HOCP96-540 


2430 


XL09-023 


L97-128 


L98-207 


1470 


XL09-071 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


9168 


XL09-024 


L98-207 


L98-207 


1060 


XL09-072 


HOCP00-950 


LO 1-299 


3663 


XL09-025 


HOCP04-838 


L99-226 


411 


XL09-073 


HOCP92-618 


LO 1-299 


1266 


XL09-026 


L97-128 


L99-226 


491 


XL09-074 


HOCP92-624 


LO 1-299 


1430 


XL09-027 


LCP81-010 


L99-226 


1589 


XL09-075 


HOCP92-648 


LO 1-299 


1138 


XL09-028 


L99-226 


L99-226 


801 


XL09-076 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


202 


XL09-029 


L97-128 


L99-233 


411 


XL09-077 


LCP81-010 


L06-001 


3383 


XL09-030 


LCP81-010 


L99-233 


1943 


XL09-078 


L97-128 


L06-001 


262 


XL09-031 


HOCP04-838 


L99-233 


1758 


XL09-079 


HOCP00-950 


L06-001 


2734 


XL09-032 


L99-233 


L99-233 


1017 


XL09-080 


HOCP04-838 


L06-001 


964 


XL09-033 


HOCP04-838 


LO 1-299 


743 


XL09-081 


N--27 


L06-001 





XL09-034 


HOCP92-624 


LO 1-299 


1568 


XL09-082 


HOCP02-610 


L06-001 


4011 


XL09-035 


L97-128 


LO 1-299 


570 


XL09-083 


L06-001 


L06-001 


104 


XL09-036 


HOCP04-838 


09P1 


2205 


XL09-084 


L97-128 


L06-038 


195 


XL09-037 


HOCP92-624 


09P1 


5205 


XL09-085 


HOCP04-838 


L06-038 


1574 


XL09-038 


LO 1-299 


09P1 


2721 


XL09-086 


HOCP00-950 


L06-038 


1152 


XL09-039 


L99-226 


09P1 


1927 


XL09-087 


L06-038 


L06-038 


13 


XL09-040 


L99-233 


09P1 


344 


XL09-088 


HOCP00-950 


L94-428 


702 


XL09-041 


HOCP04-838 


LO 1-299 


1771 


XL09-089 


HOCP04-838 


L94-428 


1159 


XL09-042 


HOCP92-624 


LO 1-299 


1248 


XL09-090 


HOCP92-648 


L94-428 


462 


XL09-043 


L05-457 


LO 1-299 


1889 


XL09-091 


L08-076 


L94-428 


110 


XL09-044 


L08-090 


LO 1-299 


1653 


XL09-092 


N-27 


L94-428 


4901 


XL09-045 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


103 


XL09-093 


L94-428 


L94-428 


163 


XL09-046 


HOCP04-838 


L06-038 


667 


XL09-094 


LCP81-010 


L99-226 


16112 


XL09-047 


HOCP92-624 


L06-038 


1216 


XL09-095 


HOCP00-950 


L99-226 


3864 


XL09-048 


L97-128 


L06-038 


322 


XL09-096 


L08-076 


L99-226 


496 



15 



Table 5. Continue. 



Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


XL09-097 


N-27 


L99-226 


6765 


XL09-147 


HOCP92-624 


L06-001 


1437 


XL09-098 


L99-226 


L99-226 


732 


XL09-148 


HOCP00-950 


L06-001 


77 


XL09-099 


HOCP00-950 


L99-233 


1278 


XL09-149 


L06-001 


L06-001 


53 


XL09-100 


HOCP96-540 


L99-233 


9409 


XL09-150 


L08-076 


L05-448 


87 


XL09-101 


HOCP04-838 


L99-233 


802 


XL09-151 


L06-038 


L05-448 


51 


XL09-102 


L99-233 


L99-233 


3914 


XL09-152 


HOCP92-648 


L05-448 


208 


XL09-103 


HO06-563 


LCP85-384 


1210 


XL09-153 


HOCP92-618 


L05-448 


3470 


XL09-104 


HOCP00-950 


LCP85-384 


591 


XL09-154 


HOCP00-950 


L05-448 


273 


XL09-105 


L97-128 


LCP85-384 


387 


XL09-155 


L05-448 


L05-448 


711 


XL09-106 


LCP85-384 


LCP85-384 


739 


XL09-156 


HOCP92-648 


LCP85-384 


208 


XL09-107 


HOCP96-540 


09P4 


5091 


XL09-157 


HOCPO 1-523 


LCP85-384 


2301 


XL09-108 


LO 1-299 


09P4 


1100 


XL09-158 


HOCP00-950 


LCP85-384 


1728 


XL09-109 


L06-001 


09P4 


575 


XL09-159 


HO06-523 


LCP85-384 


1360 


XL09-110 


L06-038 


09P4 


76 


XL09-160 


LCP85-384 


LCP85-384 


701 


XL09-111 


L99-226 


09P4 


1665 


XL09-161 


LCP81-010 


HOCP96-540 


1729 


XL09-112 


L99-233 


09P4 


2485 


XL09-162 


HOCP02-610 


HOCP96-540 


2064 


XL09-113 


HOCP96-540 


09P5 


11165 


XL09-163 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP96-540 


193 


XL09-114 


LO 1-299 


09P5 


942 


XL09-164 


HOCP00-930 


HOCP96-540 


1720 


XL09-115 


L06-038 


09P5 


265 


XL09-165 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


5804 


XL09-116 


L99-226 


09P5 


2736 


XL09-166 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP97-609 





XL09-117 


L99-233 


09P5 


2128 


XL09-167 


HOCP02-610 


HOCP97-609 


1961 


XL09-118 


L94-426 


L06-001 


1809 


XL09-168 


HOCP00-930 


HOCP97-609 


634 


XL09-119 


L05-448 


L06-001 


1894 


XL09-169 


HO0 1-564 


HOCP97-609 


1474 


XL09-120 


HOCP02-610 


L06-001 


3733 


XL09-170 


HOCP97-609 


HOCP97-609 


2020 


XL09-121 


HO06-563 


L06-001 


1723 


XL09-171 


HOCP04-838 


L94-428 


751 


XL09-122 


L06-001 


L06-001 


141 


XL09-172 


HOCP02-623 


L94-428 


512 


XL09-123 


HOCP00-950 


HOCPO 1-523 


22 


XL09-173 


HOCP02-610 


L94-428 


1703 


XL09-124 


HO06-563 


HOCPO 1-523 


915 


XL09-174 


HOCP00-950 


L94-428 


325 


XL09-125 


HOCP02-610 


HOCPO 1-523 


2940 


XL09-175 


L94-428 


L94-428 


233 


XL09-126 


HOCP92-624 


HOCPO 1-523 


744 


XL09-176 


HOCP02-623 


L94-432 


1068 


XL09-127 


HOCPO 1-523 


HOCPO 1-523 


1123 


XL09-177 


HOCP02-610 


L94-432 


3125 


XL09-128 


LCP81-010 


HOCP96-540 


127 


XL09-178 


HOCP00-950 


L94-432 


882 


XL09-129 


HOCP97-609 


HOCP96-540 


5466 


XL09-179 


N-27 


L94-432 


6295 


XL09-130 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP96-540 


652 


XL09-180 


L94-432 


L94-432 


633 


XL09-131 


HO06-563 


HOCP96-540 


2238 


XL09-181 


HOCP05-904 


09P7 


5831 


XL09-132 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


8567 


XL09-182 


HOCP96-540 


09P7 


6339 


XL09-133 


L05-457 


L99-226 


1720 


XL09-183 


L0 1-299 


09P7 


573 


XL09-134 


HOCP00-950 


L99-226 


212 


XL09-184 


L05-448 


09P7 


427 


XL09-135 


HO06-563 


L99-226 


950 


XL09-185 


L06-001 


09P7 


844 


XL09-136 


L99-226 


L99-226 


94 


XL09-186 


L98-207 


09P7 


758 


XL09-137 


HOCP00-930 


09P6 


1833 


XL09-187 


HOCP02-623 


US0 1-040 


469 


XL09-138 


HOCP07-615 


09P6 


91 


XL09-188 


HOCP00-930 


USO 1-040 


1615 


XL09-139 


HOCP92-618 


09P6 


4580 


XL09-189 


HOCP00-950 


USO 1-040 


1400 


XL09-140 


LO 1-299 


09P6 


1598 


XL09-190 


US0 1-040 


USO 1-040 


353 


XL09-141 


L99-226 


09P6 


21 


XL09-191 


HOO 1-564 


HO06-562 


226 


XL09-142 


L99-233 


09P6 


3245 


XL09-192 


HO07-613 


HO06-562 


2298 


XL09-143 


LCP85-384 


09P6 


3692 


XL09-193 


HOCP00-950 


HO06-562 


1058 


XL09-144 


LCP86-454 


L06-001 


2505 


XL09-194 


HOCP02-610 


HO06-562 


2814 


XL09-145 


LCP81-010 


L06-001 


2745 


XL09-195 


HO06-562 


HO06-562 





XL09-146 


HOCP02-610 


L06-001 


2766 


XL09-196 


HOCP85-845 


H095-988 


1604 



16 



Table 5. Continue. 




Seed 


Cross 


Female 


Male 




Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


XL09-197 


HOCP07-615 


H095-988 


12 


XL09-247 


L05-457 


HOCP96-540 


2251 


XL09-198 


LO 1-283 


H095-988 


34 


XL09-248 


LO 1-299 


HOCP96-540 


194 


XL09-199 


L08-084 


H095-988 


142 


XL09-249 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


5153 


XL09-200 


H095-988 


H095-988 


84 


XL09-250 


HOCP02-610 


L99-233 


869 


XL09-201 


HOCP05-902 


L99-226 


204 


XL09-251 


HOCP02-623 


L99-233 


851 


XL09-202 


HOCP05-918 


L99-226 





XL09-252 


HOCP04-838 


L99-233 


834 


XL09-203 


HOCP00-950 


L99-226 





XL09-253 


LO 1-283 


L99-233 


2429 


XL09-204 


L94-426 


L99-226 


2252 


XL09-254 


L99-233 


L99-233 


729 


XL09-205 


L99-226 


L99-226 


1105 


XL09-255 


HOCP92-618 


09P10 


5040 


XL09-206 


HOCP00-950 


LO 1-299 


10 


XL09-256 


HOCP91-552 


09P10 


3248 


XL09-207 


HOCP07-615 


LO 1-299 





XL09-257 


HOCP96-540 


09P10 


706 


XL09-208 


HOCP92-648 


LO 1-299 





XL09-258 


L06-038 


09P10 


30 


XL09-209 


L94-426 


LO 1-299 





XL09-259 


LCP85-384 


09P10 


1742 


XL09-210 


L98-207 


LO 1-299 


647 


XL09-260 


HOCP9 1-552 


09P11 


4303 


XL09-211 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


46 


XL09-261 


HOCP96-540 


09P11 


2103 


XL09-212 


HOCP02-610 


HOCP96-540 


1594 


XL09-262 


L06-038 


09P11 


106 


XL09-213 


H095-988 


HOCP96-540 


877 


XL09-263 


L99-233 


09P11 


1419 


XL09-214 


L94-426 


HOCP96-540 





XL09-264 


LCP85-384 


09P11 


1332 


XL09-215 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


4500 


XL09-265 


TUCCP77-042 


LO 1-283 


226 


XL09-216 


HOO 1-564 


L06-001 


422 


XL09-266 


HOCP05-918 


LO 1-283 


3420 


XL09-217 


HOCP00-950 


L06-001 


164 


XL09-267 


HOCP05-902 


LO 1-283 


761 


XL09-218 


HOCP02-610 


L06-001 


4510 


XL09-268 


HOCPOO-950 


LO 1-283 





XL09-219 


L06-001 


L06-001 


22 


XL09-269 


LO 1-283 


LO 1-283 


1332 


XL09-220 


HOCP02-610 


LCP85-384 


2567 


XL09-270 


HOCPOO-950 


HOCP85-845 


18 


XL09-221 


HOCP00-950 


LCP85-384 


326 


XL09-271 


HOCP05-902 


HOCP85-845 


155 


XL09-222 


HOCP92-624 


LCP85-384 





XL09-272 


HOCP01-517 


HOCP85-845 


224 


XL09-223 


LCP85-384 


LCP85-384 


973 


XL09-273 


HO05-961 


HOCP85-845 


450 


XL09-224 


HO06-562 


09P8 


228 


XL09-274 


HOCP85-845 


HOCP85-845 


1426 


XL09-225 


H095-988 


09P8 


1816 


XL09-275 


L98-209 


HOCP02-623 


209 


XL09-226 


HOCP96-540 


09P8 


4220 


XL09-276 


L97-128 


HOCP02-623 


58 


XL09-227 


L99-226 


09P8 


1938 


XL09-277 


L94-426 


HOCP02-623 


111 


XL09-228 


HOCP92-618 


09P8 


857 


XL09-278 


L05-457 


HOCP02-623 


345 


XL09-229 


H095-988 


09P9 


3696 


XL09-279 


HOCP02-623 


HOCP02-623 


96 


XL09-230 


HOCP02-618 


09P9 


301 


XL09-280 


HOCP05-902 


HOCP92-618 


230 


XL09-231 


HOCP96-561 


09P9 


2217 


XL09-281 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP92-618 


1865 


XL09-232 


LCP99-226 


09P9 


265 


XL09-282 


HOCP02-618 


HOCP92-618 


461 


XL09-233 


HOO 1-564 


HO06-562 


888 


XL09-283 


HOCPO 1-523 


HOCP92-618 


114 


XL09-234 


HO07-613 


HO06-562 


701 


XL09-284 


HOCP92-618 


HOCP92-618 


1491 


XL09-235 


HOCP02-610 


HO06-562 


2698 


XL09-285 


HO06-563 


LO 1-299 


902 


XL09-236 


LO 1-283 


HO06-562 


1081 


XL09-286 


HO06-537 


LO 1-299 


30 


XL09-237 


HOCP02-623 


HO06-562 


1811 


XL09-287 


HOO 1-564 


LO 1-299 


452 


XL09-238 


HO06-562 


HO06-562 


461 


XL09-288 


L94-428 


LO 1-299 


398 


XL09-239 


HO06-563 


LO 1-299 


1614 


XL09-289 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


107 


XL09-240 


HOCPOO-950 


LO 1-299 


317 


XL09-290 


HOCP02-623 


09P12 


979 


XL09-241 


HOCP02-623 


LO 1-299 


1117 


XL09-291 


HOCP05-904 


09P12 


1814 


XL09-242 


HOCP05-902 


LO 1-299 


2804 


XL09-292 


HOCP85-845 


09P12 


225 


XL09-243 


HOCP05-918 


LO 1-299 


2031 


XL09-293 


HOCP9 1-552 


09P12 


4942 


XL09-244 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


317 


XL09-294 


HOCP96-540 


09P12 


3007 


XL09-245 


HO06-563 


HOCP96-540 


2781 


XL09-295 


LCP85-384 


09P12 


1053 


XL09-246 


HOCP02-623 


HOCP96-540 


1193 


XL09-296 


L99-233 


09P12 


2581 



17 



Table 5. Continue. 



Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


XL09-297 


LCP85-384 


09P13 


1649 


XL09-347 


L05-448 


HOO 1-564 


105 


XL09-298 


LO 1-299 


09P13 


1149 


XL09-348 


L05-457 


HOO 1-564 


631 


XL09-299 


TUCCP77-042 


09P13 


86 


XL09-349 


L97-128 


HOO 1-564 


488 


XL09-300 


LO 1-283 


09P13 


930 


XL09-350 


HOO 1-564 


HOO 1-564 


156 


XL09-301 


HO06-562 


09P13 


589 


XL09-351 


HOCP92-624 


HOCP01-517 


2073 


XL09-302 


HOCP02-623 


09P13 


318 


XL09-352 


HOCP96-561 


HOCP01-517 


930 


XL09-303 


HOCP9 1-552 


09P13 


1859 


XL09-353 


L05-457 


HOCP01-517 


3500 


XL09-304 


HOO 1-564 


HOCP01-517 


470 


XL09-354 


L97-128 


HOCP01-517 


599 


XL09-305 


HOCP02-623 


HOCP01-517 


948 


XL09-355 


L98-207 


HOCP01-517 


1230 


XL09-306 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP01-517 


1225 


XL09-356 


HOCP01-517 


HOCP01-517 


196 


XL09-307 


HOCP04-847 


HOCP01-517 


174 


XL09-357 


HOCP92-624 


L99-226 


3534 


XL09-308 


L05-457 


HOCP01-517 


1346 


XL09-358 


HOCP96-561 


L99-226 


1533 


XL09-309 


HOCP01-517 


HOCP01-517 


241 


XL09-359 


L05-457 


L99-226 


661 


XL09-310 


HO05-961 


HOCP07-615 


1206 


XL09-360 


TUCCP77-042 


L99-226 


104 


XL09-311 


H095-988 


HOCP07-615 


1253 


XL09-361 


N-27 


L99-226 


6076 


XL09-312 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP07-615 


1117 


XL09-362 


L99-226 


L99-226 


843 


XL09-313 


HOCP07-615 


HOCP07-615 


262 


XL09-363 


HOCP92-624 


HOCP06-523 


2568 


XL09-314 


L94-426 


L08-089 


250 


XL09-364 


L05-457 


HOCP06-523 


2598 


XL09-315 


HOCP02-623 


L08-089 


354 


XL09-365 


TUCCP77-042 


HOCP06-523 


28 


XL09-316 


HOCP04-838 


L08-089 


1826 


XL09-366 


LO 1-283 


HOCP06-523 


5047 


XL09-317 


HOCP04-847 


L08-089 


632 


XL09-367 


HOCP06-523 


HOCP06-523 


2050 


XL09-318 


HOCP92-624 


L08-089 


1620 


XL09-368 


HOCP02-618 


09P15 


7 


XL09-319 


L08-089 


L08-089 


108 


XL09-369 


LO 1-283 


09P15 


1746 


XL09-320 


HOCP92-624 


LO 1-283 


3006 


XL09-370 


L99-233 


09P15 


9596 


XL09-321 


LOl-315 


LO 1-283 


1039 


XL09-371 


HOCP04-847 


09P15 


52 


XL09-322 


L94-433 


LO 1-283 


1529 


XL09-372 


HOO 1-564 


HO06-523 





XL09-323 


L05-457 


L01-283 


2408 


XL09-373 


HO05-961 


HO06-523 





XL09-324 


LO 1-283 


LO 1-283 


662 


XL09-374 


HOCP92-648 


HO06-523 





XL09-325 


HOCP01-517 


09P14 


1393 


XL09-375 


L05-457 


HO06-523 


99 


XL09-326 


HOCP05-904 


09P14 


856 


XL09-376 


HOCP00-950 


HO06-523 





XL09-327 


HOCP9 1-552 


09P14 


1615 


XL09-377 


HO06-523 


HO06-523 


223 


XL09-328 


USO 1-040 


09P14 


817 


XL09-378 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP05-904 


816 


XL09-329 


HOCP96-540 


09P14 


811 


XL09-379 


L05-457 


HOCP05-904 


732 


XL09-330 


L05-457 


09P14 


817 


XL09-380 


L08-095 


HOCP05-904 





XL09-331 


L99-233 


09P14 


3003 


XL09-381 


HOCP05-904 


HOCP05-904 


38 


XL09-332 


L08-089 


09P14 


1416 


XL09-382 


HO06-530 


HOCP05-918 


9336 


XL09-333 


CP83-644 


LO 1-283 


905 


XL09-383 


L05-457 


HOCP05-918 


309 


XL09-334 


HOCP00-950 


LO 1-283 


1509 


XL09-384 


L94-433 


HOCP05-918 


684 


XL09-335 


HOCP04-838 


LO 1-283 


1284 


XL09-385 


LCP81-010 


HOCP05-918 


1770 


XL09-336 


HOCP04-847 


LO 1-283 





XL09-386 


HOCP05-918 


HOCP05-918 





XL09-337 


L05-457 


LO 1-283 


1351 


XL09-387 


HO05-961 


L99-226 


1163 


XL09-338 


LO 1-283 


LO 1-283 


828 


XL09-388 


HO06-530 


L99-226 


344 


XL09-339 


HO06-537 


L94-433 


242 


XL09-389 


L94-428 


L99-226 





XL09-340 


HOCP00-950 


L94-433 


126 


XL09-390 


L97-128 


L99-226 


408 


XL09-341 


HOCP96-561 


L94-433 


44 


XL09-391 


LCP81-010 


L99-226 


1328 


XL09-342 


L08-076 


L94-433 


21 


XL09-392 


L99-226 


L99-226 





XL09-343 


L08-084 


L94-433 


98 


XL09-393 


HO06-530 


L06-038 


1693 


XL09-344 


L94-433 


L94-433 


32 


XL09-394 


HOCP00-950 


L06-038 


66 


XL09-345 


HOCP92-624 


HOO 1-564 


572 


XL09-395 


L05-457 


L06-038 


663 


XL09-346 


HOCP96-561 


HOO 1-564 


89 


XL09-396 


L97-128 


L06-038 






18 



Table 5. Continue. 



Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


XL09-397 


LCP81-010 


L06-038 


4468 


XL09-447 


L98-209 


LO 1-283 


278 


XL09-398 


L06-038 


L06-038 


27 


XL09-448 


LO 1-283 


LO 1-283 


128 


XL09-399 


HOCP00-950 


L05-448 





XL09-449 


HOCPOO-950 


09P17 


1486 


XL09-400 


L05-457 


L05-448 


205 


XL09-450 


HOCP96-540 


09P17 


2768 


XL09-401 


L97-128 


L05-448 


237 


XL09-451 


L05-448 


09P17 


938 


XL09-402 


L05-448 


L05-448 


71 


XL09-452 


L06-038 


09P17 





XL09-403 


HOCP96-540 


09P16 


2646 


XL09-453 


L97-128 


09P17 


760 


XL09-404 


HOCP96-561 


09P16 


716 


XL09-454 


LCP85-384 


09P17 


1895 


XL09-405 


L99-233 


09P16 


230 


XL09-455 


HOCP04-838 


09P17 


1144 


XL09-406 


LCP85-384 


09P16 


1006 


XL09-456 


CP83-644 


HO05-961 


706 


XL09-407 


L97-128 


09P16 





XL09-457 


HO06-530 


HO05-961 


852 


XL09-408 


LCP86-454 


09P16 


3170 


XL09-458 


HOCP96-561 


HO05-961 


377 


XL09-409 


HOCP04-838 


09P16 


1509 


XL09-459 


L94-433 


HO05-961 


434 


XL09-410 


HO06-530 


HO06-523 


540 


XL09-460 


HO05-961 


HO05-961 


1217 


XL09-411 


HO07-617 


HO06-523 


311 


XL09-461 


HO06-523 


HOCP00-930 


2180 


XL09-412 


HOCPOO-950 


HO06-523 


153 


XL09-462 


L06-038 


HOCPOO-930 





XL09-413 


L01-315 


HO06-523 


1028 


XL09-463 


L08-095 


HOCPOO-930 


503 


XL09-414 


LCP81-010 


HO06-523 


1128 


XL09-464 


L99-226 


HOCPOO-930 


1060 


XL09-415 


HO06-523 


HO06-523 


577 


XL09-465 


HOCP00-930 


HOCPOO-930 


602 


XL09-416 


L08-082 


LCP86-454 


360 


XL09-466 


HO06-537 


HOCP02-610 


1358 


XL09-417 


HOCPOO-950 


LCP86-454 


777 


XL09-467 


LO 1-283 


HOCP02-610 


2110 


XL09-418 


HOCP05-902 


LCP86-454 


1771 


XL09-468 


L08-082 


HOCP00-610 


918 


XL09-419 


L97-128 


LCP86-454 


179 


XL09-469 


L97-128 


HOCP02-610 


235 


XL09-420 


LCP86-454 


LCP86-454 


717 


XL09-470 


L99-226 


HOCP02-610 


104 


XL09-421 


HO06-537 


LO 1-299 


889 


XL09-471 


HOCP02-610 


HOCP02-610 


1568 


XL09-422 


HOCP02-610 


LO 1-299 


900 


XL09-472 


HO06-530 


L08-076 


2051 


XL09-423 


HOCP05-902 


LO 1-299 


17 


XL09-473 


HOCPOO-950 


L08-076 


510 


XL09-424 


L08-085 


LO 1-299 


22 


XL09-474 


LO 1-283 


L08-076 


922 


XL09-425 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


405 


XL09-475 


L01-315 


L08-076 


2264 


XL09-426 


HOCP04-838 


HOCP96-540 


1809 


XL09-476 


L94-432 


L08-076 


1837 


XL09-427 


HOCP04-847 


HOCP96-540 


465 


XL09-477 


L08-076 


L08-076 


159 


XL09-428 


HOCP92-648 


HOCP96-540 


1293 


XL09-478 


HO06-523 


L94-428 


2499 


XL09-429 


L01-315 


HOCP96-540 


1085 


XL09-479 


HOCP04-847 


L94-428 


59 


XL09-430 


L08-082 


HOCP96-540 


521 


XL09-480 


LO 1-283 


L94-428 


2339 


XL09-431 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


3450 


XL09-481 


L06-038 


L94-428 


8 


XL09-432 


HOCPOO-950 


L06-038 


366 


XL09-482 


L08-082 


HOCP96-540 


725 


XL09-433 


HOCP02-610 


L06-038 


2599 


XL09-483 


L94-428 


L94-428 


600 


XL09-434 


L01-315 


L06-038 


2332 


XL09-484 


L06-038 


HOCP96-540 


37 


XL09-435 


L05-448 


L06-038 


1127 


XL09-485 


L99-233 


HOCP96-540 


1683 


XL09-436 


L97-128 


L06-038 


623 


XL09-486 


LCP85-384 


HOCP96-540 


2320 


XL09-437 


L06-038 


L06-038 


12 


XL09-487 


HO05-961 


HOCP96-540 


1935 


XL09-438 


HO06-537 


L99-226 


781 


XL09-488 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


3920 


XL09-439 


HOCPOO-950 


L99-226 


343 


XL09-489 


HO06-562 


09P18 


216 


XL09-440 


L05-448 


L99-226 


447 


XL09-490 


HOCP92-624 


09P18 


1689 


XL09-441 


L08-084 


L99-226 


281 


XL09-491 


HOCP96-540 


09P18 


6173 


XL09-442 


LCP81-010 


L99-226 


1016 


XL09-492 


L08-076 


09P18 


89 


XL09-443 


L99-226 


L99-226 


80 


XL09-493 


L94-428 


09P18 





XL09-444 


HOCPOO-950 


LO 1-283 


123 


XL09-494 


HO06-562 


HOCP97-609 


983 


XL09-445 


L05-448 


LO 1-283 


1219 


XL09-495 


HO07-617 


HOCP97-609 


225 


XL09-446 


L97-128 


LO 1-283 


347 


XL09-496 


HOCPOO-950 


HOCP97-609 


799 



19 



Table 5. Continue. 



Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


XL09-497 


HOCP04-847 


HOCP97-609 


408 


XL09-547 


HOCP04-847 


HO06-562 


45 


XL09-498 


HOCP97-609 


HOCP97-609 


1131 


XL09-548 


L97-128 


HO06-562 


179 


XL09-499 


L06-038 


L99-226 





XL09-549 


HOCP96-561 


HO06-562 


273 


XL09-500 


HOCP04-838 


L99-226 


1770 


XL09-550 


HO06-562 


HO06-562 


519 


XL09-501 


HO07-613 


L99-226 


979 


XL09-551 


HOCP00-930 


HOCP96-540 


1506 


XL09-502 


HO06-562 


L99-226 


570 


XL09-552 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP96-540 


812 


XL09-503 


L99-226 


L99-226 


2781 


XL09-553 


HOCP96-561 


HOCP96-540 


711 


XL09-504 


L06-038 


L99-233 





XL09-554 


L97-128 


HOCP96-540 





XL09-505 


HO06-562 


L99-233 


622 


XL09-555 


LCP85-384 


HOCP96-540 


836 


XL09-506 


HO06-537 


L99-233 


2560 


XL09-556 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP96-540 


3130 


XL09-507 


HO06-523 


L99-233 


3209 


XL09-557 


L08-084 


L94-426 





XL09-508 


L99-233 


L99-233 


1442 


XL09-558 


LO 1-283 


L94-426 


1166 


XL09-509 


HOCP96-540 


09P19 


7689 


XL09-559 


HOCP97-606 


L94-426 


278 


XL09-510 


L08-089 


09P19 


81 


XL09-560 


HOCP96-561 


L94-426 


863 


XL09-511 


L99-233 


09P19 


3004 


XL09-561 


HO06-562 


L94-426 


293 


XL09-512 


LCP81-010 


09P19 


3805 


XL09-562 


L94-426 


L94-426 


57 


XL09-513 


HOCP97-606 


HO05-961 


93 


XL09-563 


L05-448 


LCP85-384 


1784 


XL09-514 


L08-078 


HO05-961 


524 


XL09-564 


HO06-562 


LCP85-384 


474 


XL09-515 


HOCP04-847 


HO05-961 


214 


XL09-565 


CP83-644 


LCP85-384 


1598 


XL09-516 


L98-207 


HO05-961 


1818 


XL09-566 


HOCP96-561 


LCP85-384 


855 


XL09-517 


L08-079 


HO05-961 


10 


XL09-567 


LCP85-384 


LCP85-384 


801 


XL09-518 


HO05-961 


HO05-961 





XL09-568 


LO 1-283 


L99-233 


1593 


XL09-519 


CP83-644 


HOCP01-517 


3377 


XL09-569 


HOCP96-561 


L99-233 


1667 


XL09-520 


HO06-562 


HOCP01-517 


1065 


XL09-570 


HO06-562 


L99-233 


716 


XL09-521 


L98-207 


HOCP01-517 


1181 


XL09-571 


HOCP96-540 


L99-233 


2856 


XL09-522 


HOCP92-648 


HOCP01-517 


1198 


XL09-572 


L99-233 


L99-233 


391 


XL09-523 


HO07-604 


HOCP01-517 


148 


XL09-573 


USO 1-040 


09P21 


647 


XL09-524 


HOCP01-517 


HOCP01-517 


276 


XL09-574 


L98-207 


09P21 


841 


XL09-525 


HOCP92-648 


LO 1-283 


1290 


XL09-575 


LO 1-299 


09P21 


77 


XL09-526 


HO06-562 


LO 1-283 


606 


XL09-576 


HOCP05-904 


09P21 


2778 


XL09-527 


L08-076 


LO 1-283 


188 


XL09-577 


H095-988 


09P21 


931 


XL09-528 


CP83-644 


LO 1-283 


1530 


XL09-578 


HO06-562 


09P21 


746 


XL09-529 


LO 1-283 


LO 1-283 


69 


XL09-579 


HO06-537 


09P21 


282 


XL09-530 


LCP85-384 


LO 1-299 


2343 


XL09-580 


HOCP85-845 


HOCP97-609 


500 


XL09-531 


L08-094 


LO 1-299 


1313 


XL09-581 


USO 1-040 


HOCP97-609 


2154 


XL09-532 


L08-079 


LO 1-299 





XL09-582 


LO 1-283 


HOCP97-609 





XL09-533 


HOCP00-950 


LO 1-299 


51 


XL09-583 


HO07-617 


HOCP97-609 


28 


XL09-534 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


61 


XL09-584 


HOCP97-609 


HOCP97-609 


219 


XL09-535 


CP83-644 


09P20 


805 


XL09-585 


HO05-961 


LO 1-299 


371 


XL09-536 


HOCP00-950 


09P20 


86 


XL09-586 


TUCCP77-042 


LO 1-299 


33 


XL09-537 


HOCP04-838 


09P20 


615 


XL09-587 


L08-094 


LO 1-299 


1293 


XL09-538 


HOCP04-847 


09P20 


943 


XL09-588 


L94-432 


LO 1-299 


751 


XL09-539 


L07-043 


09P20 


136 


XL09-589 


LO 1-299 


LO 1-299 


247 


XL09-540 


L98-128 


09P20 





XL09-590 


LO 1-283 


L99-226 


546 


XL09-541 


L98-207 


09P20 


754 


XL09-591 


L97-128 


L99-226 


56 


XL09-542 


LCP81-010 


HO06-523 


3000 


XL09-592 


L98-209 


L99-226 


1822 


XL09-543 


HOCP96-561 


HO06-523 


190 


XL09-593 


LCP81-010 


L99-226 


1389 


XL09-544 


L08-085 


HO06-523 





XL09-594 


L99-226 


L99-226 


566 


XL09-545 


HO06-523 


HO06-523 


5764 


XL09-595 


TUCCP77-042 


LO 1-283 


537 


XL09-546 


CP83-644 


HO06-562 


4316 


XL09-596 


LO 1-283 


LO 1-283 






20 



Table 5. Continue. 






Cross 


Female 


Male 


Seed 


XL09-597 


HO05-961 


HOCP02-618 


376 


XL09-598 


HO06-562 


HOCP02-618 


228 


XL09-599 


LCP81-010 


HOCP02-618 


4529 


XL09-600 


HOCP96-540 


HOCP02-618 


3480 


XL09-601 


HOCP96-561 


TUCCP77-042 


507 


XL09-602 


HOO 1-564 


TUCCP77-042 


1205 


XL09-603 


HO06-562 


TUCCP77-042 


1280 


XL09-604 


L98-207 


TUCCP77-042 


1740 


XL09-605 


HO07-612 


LO 1-283 





XL09-606 


HO06-562 


LO 1-283 


1005 


XL09-607 


H095-988 


LO 1-283 


1020 


XL09-608 


CP83-644 


L99-226 


1889 


XL09-609 


HO06-562 


L99-226 


630 


XL09-610 


L94-433 


L99-226 


956 


XL09-611 


L99-233 


L99-226 


3025 


XL09-612 


HO07-617 


TUCCP77-042 


36 


XL09-613 


L08-077 


TUCCP77-042 





XL09-614 


L08-093 


TUCCP77-042 


1463 


XL09-615 


LO 1-299 


TUCCP77-042 


441 


XL09-616 


HO07-613 


09P22 


660 


XL09-617 


LCP85-384 


09P22 


323 


XL09-618 


L99-226 


09P22 


1254 


XL09-619 


L08-077 


09P22 


122 


XL09-620 


HOCP96-540 


09P23 


2374 


XL09-621 


L08-079 


09P23 


14 


XL09-622 


HO05-961 


09P23 


359 


XL09-623 


L08-093 


09P23 


1036 


XL09-624 


H095-988 


HOCPO 1-523 


337 


XL09-625 


HOCP00-930 


HOCPO 1-523 


169 


XL09-626 


L03-371 


HOCPO 1-523 





XL09-627 


CP83-644 


L08-093 


2646 


XL09-628 


HO06-530 


L08-093 


1485 


XL09-629 


HO06-562 


L08-093 


154 


XL09-630 


L99-233 


L08-093 


1654 


XL09-631 


HOCP96-540 


09P24 


5175 


XL09-632 


HOCP92-618 


09P24 


548 


XL09-633 


L08-089 


09P24 


834 


XL09-634 


L94-432 


09P24 


916 


XL09-635 


H095-988 


09P24 


726 






21 



SELECTIONS, ADVANCEMENTS, AND ASSIGNMENTS OF THE 
LSU AGCENTER SUGARCANE VARIETY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR 2009 

Keith Bischoff, Kenneth Gravois, Michael Pontif, Gert Hawkins, and Dexter Fontenot 

Sugar Research Station 

SUMMARY 

In the selection phase of the LSU AgCenter's Sugarcane Variety Development Program, 
superior clones are advanced through the single stool, first line, second line, and increase stages 
of the breeding program. In the first stubble crop of the second-line trials, those clones with 
acceptable breeding or commercial value are assigned a permanent variety number. A total of 
76,213 seedlings from 153 crosses were planted in the field in the spring of 2009. The majority 
of these seedlings are progeny of poly crosses among commercial and elite experimental 
varieties. Due to lack of seed production previous crosses were selected from the freezer to 
supplement seedlings planted in 2009. In the fall of 2009, family selection was practiced on the 
70,878 stubble seedlings surviving the winter. This selection resulted in the planting of 1,836 
first-line trial plots. At the same time, superior clones were also selected and advanced through 
subsequent stages (341 to second line trials, 157 to the increase stage). Assignments of 
permanent "L09" numbers were given to the 35 best clones of the 2004 crossing series. 

PROCEDURES 

In the selection stage of the LSU AgCenter's Sugarcane Variety Development Program, 
single stools are established from seed generated in the crossing stage. After evaluating and 
selecting the families for cane yield potential in the cross appraisal studies, clones with desirable 
phenotypes are selected and advanced through single stool, first line, second line, and increase 
stages. In the first stubble crop of the second-line trials, clones judged to have breeding or 
commercial value are assigned a permanent variety number and advanced to the nursery stage of 
testing. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

A total of 76,213 seedlings from 153 crosses of the 2008 crossing series were planted to 
the field in the spring of 2009 (Table 1). Many of these seedlings were progeny of crosses 
among commercial and superior experimental varieties. In the fall of 2009, individual selection 
was practiced on the 70,878 stubble single stools of the 2007 crossing series that survived the 
winter. The 1,836 clones selected and advanced from the single stools were planted in 10-foot 
first-line trial plots. Dates of planting and harvesting of all plots in the selection phase of the 
program can be found in Table 2. 

The 2,623 first-line trial plots of the 2006 crossing series were rated for cane yield and 
pest resistance in August of 2009 (Table 3). After screening for cane yield rating, acceptable 
clones were further evaluated for pest resistance (diseases and borer injury) stalk quality, and 
Brix (Table 3). This second stage of advancement was concluded with the planting of 341 
clones in single row 16-foot second line trials plots. 



22 



Stalk counts were made on the 334 plant-cane second line trial plots of the 2005 crossing 
series in August 2009. Based on these counts and sucrose lab data collected in 2008, 157 clones 
were planted in two single row 16-foot plots representing the increase stage of the program 
(Table 4). One replication was planted in light soil and the other in heavy soil. These clones 
will be candidates for assignment in 2010. Of the 164 candidates from the first stubble crop of 
the second line trial plots, the best 35 clones from the 2004 crossing series were assigned 
permanent "L09" numbers (Table 5). These newly assigned "L09" varieties were then planted in 
replicated nursery trials at three on station locations (Sugar Research Station, Iberia Research 
Station, USDA-ARS Ardoyne Farm). 

The advancement summary of clones from crosses made in 2004 through 2008 is shown 
in Table 6. Crosses are sorted by female parent in ascending order, with the percentile ranking 
given for each cross in each stage of the program. 



Table 1 . Summary of selections, advancements and assignments made during 2009 by the 

Louisiana, "L," Sugarcane Variety Development Program's personnel. 

Crosses Advanced to 






Crossing Progeny Selection Plants Over- 1st 2nd Increase On-station 

series test program transplanted wintered line line Nurseries 

plants (L09 

Assignments) 

















X04 


67 


194 


93490 


76377 


2334 458 


164 


35 


X05 


60 


128 


79395 


50655 


2000 334 


157 




X06 


120 


178 


84307 


51867 


2623 341 






X07 


70 


132 


81474 


70878 


1836 






X08 


~ 


153 


76213 











23 



Table 2. Dates of seedling and line trials planted or harvested in 2009. 



Crossing Series 


Test 


Crop 


Date Planted 


Date Harvested 


X08 


Seedlings 


Planted 


4/15-4/23 




X07 


Seedlings 


First Stubble 


4/15-4/15/08 




X07 


First Line Trials 


Planted 


9/10/09 




X06 


First Line Trials 


Plant-cane 


10/09- 10/15/08 




X05 


First Line Trials 


First Stubble 


9/07-9/17/07 


12/03/09 


X06 


Second Line Trials 


Planted 


10/01/09 




X05 


Second Line Trials 


Plant-cane 


10/21/08 


10/21/09 


X04 


Second Line Trials 


First Stubble 


9/20/07 


10/12/09 


X03 


Second Line Trials 


Second Stubble 


9/26/06 


11/09/09 


X05 


Light Soil Increase 


Planted 


10/21/09 




X04 


Light Soil Increase 


Plant-cane 


10/02/08 


12/07/09 


X03 


Light Soil Increase 


First Stubble 


9/21/07 


11/30/09 


X02 


Light Soil Increase 


Second Stubble 


10/03/06 


10/26/09 


X04 


Heavy Soil Increase 


Plant-cane 


10/02/08 


11/23/09 


X03 


Heavy Soil Increase 


First Stubble 


9/21/07 


11/09/09 


X02 


Heavy Soil Increase 


Second Stubble 


10/03/06 


11/09/09 



24 



Table 3. Numbers of experimental clones dropped for identified faults in the 2006 crossing 

series first-line trials. 

Fault 



Trait Frequency Percent 

2623 clones enter first round of evaluation 

Initial Selection (Rating) 1669 63.6 

962 clones enter second round of evaluation - 

Pith /Tube 105 4.0 

Short 6 0.2 

Smut 125 4.7 

Rust 46 1.8 

282 clones dropped 

-680 clones enter third round of evaluation ~ 

Brix 339 12.9 

Clones advanced 341 13.0 



Table 4. Number of experimental clones dropped for identified faults in the 2005 crossing series of the 
plantcane second line trial prior to advancement to the increase stage. 



Fault 



Trait Frequency Percent 

334 clones enter first round of evaluation 

Stalk count <75 per plot & observations 246 

Lodged 11.0 

Pith / Tube 24.0 

Leaf Scald 1.0 

Smut 37.0 

Rust 9.0 

Short 6.0 

1 77 clones dropped 

Clones advanced to Increase stage 157 47.0 



73.7 


3.3 


7.2 


0.2 


11.1 


2.7 


1.8 



25 



Table 5. Yield data of the 2009 "L" assignments made 


in the first-stubble second line trials. 










Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


Female 


Male 


Per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 








Lbs/A 


Tons/A 


Lbs/Ton 


Lbs 


Stalks/A 


% 


HOCP96-540 


LCP86-454 


LCP85-384 


10101 


51.5 


197 


3.61 


28700 


10.3 


L99-226 


CP89-846 


LCP8 1-030 


11983 


57.7 


206 


3.11 


37094 


11.2 


L0 1-283 


L93-365 


LCP85-384 


13651 


63.4 


217 


2.92 


43333 


11.4 


L09-096 


LCP81-010 


L98-207 


11849 


60.1 


200 


2.90 


41291 


12.5 


L09-097 


HOCP0 1-523 


L02-316 


7252 


34.3 


211 


1.93 


35619 


12.1 


L09-098 


L0 1-283 


LCP81-010 


9277 


41.9 


222 


2.60 


33124 


13.4 


L09-099 


HOCPOO-930 


HOCP9 1-552 


9924 


49.9 


198 


2.43 


41064 


11.9 


L09-100 


LCP85-384 


04P4 


7495 


37.3 


203 


2.01 


38115 


12.0 


L09-101 


N27 


LCP85-384 


7785 


42.5 


180 


2.34 


36073 


9.1 


L09-102 


L97-128 


L99-226 


8437 


44.7 


187 


2.28 


38796 


10.8 


L09-103 


LCP85-384 


04P4 


12461 


57.0 


218 


2.95 


38569 


12.2 


L09-104 


HOCP0 1-553 


L99-233 


9487 


46.2 


207 


2.28 


40384 


14.0 


L09-105 


HOCPOO-930 


L99-233 


14171 


68.0 


209 


3.30 


42199 


13.1 


L09-106 


HOCPOO-930 


L99-233 


12392 


62.1 


200 


2.66 


47190 


12.2 


L09-107 


HOCPOO-930 


L99-233 


14343 


67.2 


214 


3.24 


41518 


11.8 


L09-108 


HOCP92-624 


L99-226 


8014 


38.1 


210 


2.11 


36073 


10.3 


L09-109 


L0 1-299 


HOCP9 1-552 


8047 


44.5 


185 


2.17 


40611 


11.4 


L09-110 


LCP81-010 


H095-988 


8004 


41.9 


192 


2.36 


35393 


12.6 


L09-111 


HOCP89-831 


LCP85-384 


7956 


44.1 


180 


2.54 


34485 


11.5 


L09-112 


HOCPO 1-523 


L02-316 


13123 


71.9 


184 


3.45 


41745 


12.1 


L09-113 


HOCP89-831 


LCP85-384 


9841 


44.5 


221 


1.91 


46283 


9.2 


L09-114 


CP65-357 


L02-316 


11438 


57.5 


199 


2.60 


44241 


13.1 


L09-115 


L97-128 


04P10 


6500 


34.1 


190 


2.00 


34031 


11.2 


L09-116 


HOCPOO-930 


L00-266 


9122 


44.5 


205 


2.32 


38115 


9.9 


L09-117 


HOCPO 1-5 17 


L98-207 


9519 


42.8 


223 


2.19 


39023 


10.7 


L09-118 


HOCPO 1-5 17 


L98-207 


9529 


45.3 


211 


3.23 


28359 


11.3 


L09-119 


HOCP97-609 


HOCP92-618 


9570 


47.8 


201 


1.85 


51954 


12.4 


L09-120 


HOCP92-624 


L99-226 


9599 


49.1 


197 


2.76 


35393 


12.2 


L09-121 


HOCPO 1-5 17 


L98-207 


11499 


60.8 


189 


2.92 


41745 


11.5 


L09-122 


HOCP92-624 


L99-233 


12035 


58.7 


205 


2.66 


44014 


14.1 


L09-123 


L99-233 


HOCP85-845 


13592 


66.6 


204 


3.38 


39249 


12.5 


L09-124 


HOCP95-951 


L02-325 


8007 


42.8 


187 


2.56 


33578 


12.0 


L09-125 


HOCP92-624 


L98-207 


8962 


40.2 


222 


2.72 


29267 


11.9 


L09-126 


HOCPOO-930 


L00-266 


9197 


46.4 


199 


2.71 


34258 


11.8 


L09-127 


HOCP92-624 


LCP85-384 


7109 


33.1 


214 


2.45 


26998 


11.3 


L09-129 


HOCP92-624 


LCP85-384 


8244 


38.3 


216 


2.07 


37208 


13.7 


L09-130 


L99-233 


HOCP85-845 


13323 


72.9 


183 


3.25 


44921 


12.0 


L09-131 


L99-233 


HOCP85-845 


12828 


56.0 


230 


2.77 


40611 


12.3 



26 



Table 6. 


Advancement summary of crosses in the 2002 through 2007 crossing series. 






1 st line 2 nd line Increase 


Assignment 


Female 


Rank Rank Rank 
Male Survive No Percentile No Percentile No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



2002 Crossing Series 



CP79-348 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP93-767 

L00-270 

LCP85-384 

LCP86-454 

N-27 

N-27 



L98-207 

HOCP98-741 

LCP85-384 

US0 1-040 

L99-226 

HOCP97-609 

HOCP01-517 

LCP85-384 

HOCP96-540 

LCP85-384 



237 
316 
401 
159 
111 
19 
456 
483 
347 
420 



2 


36 


17 


90 


9 


54 





18 


3 


63 





18 


9 


45 





18 


14 


77 


17 


77 






31 


2 


63 





31 





31 


1 


81 





31 





31 





31 


3 


72 


8 


90 






36 


1 


72 





36 





36 





36 





36 





36 





36 


2 


81 


6 


90 



2003 Crossing Series 



HOCPOO-930 

HOCP00-950 

HOCP85-845 

HOCP92-648 

HOCP96-540 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

N-27 

US0 1-039 

US02-096 



HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP0 1-506 

L02-328 

L99-233 

03P18 

L98-207 

LCP85-384 

H095-988 

LCP85-384 

HOCP0 1-553 



418 
124 

477 
236 
127 
1768 
705 
1536 
469 
452 





13 
40 


59 
41 

14 




27 
27 
54 
90 
27 
72 
81 
27 
63 
27 






27 





27 


3 


63 


4 


90 





27 


2 


72 


9 


81 





27 


2 


54 





27 






31 





31 


3 


72 


4 


90 





31 


5 


63 


5 


81 





31 





31 





31 



2004 Crossing Series 



CP65-357 

CP65-357 

CP65-357 

CP65-357 

CP73-351 

CP79-318 

CP79-318 

HO0 1-564 

HO0 1-564 

HO0 1-564 

H09 1-572 

H095-988 

H095-988 

H095-988 

H095-988 

H095-988 

HOCP00-930 

HOCPOO-930 

HOCP00-930 



H095-988 

L02-316 

L98-207 

L99-233 

L98-207 

L02-316 

LCP85-384 

HOCP9 1-552 

L99-226 

TUCCP77-042 

04P1 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP91-552 

L98-207 

LCP85-384 

H095-988 

H0CP89-846 

HOCP9 1-552 



238 

488 

693 

684 

956 

247 

724 

238 

444 

743 

234 

251 

941 

498 

1126 

732 

480 

706 

243 



29 

18 



16 
11 


47 

6 
17 

27 

2 





69 

87 
21 
60 
21 
21 
54 
80 
21 
89 
21 
57 
51 
21 
57 
21 
42 
21 
21 






27 


9 


95 





27 


10 


91 





27 





27 


3 


63 





27 





27 


6 


77 





27 


2 


76 


4 


65 





27 


8 


74 





27 





27 





27 





27 






33 


2 


84 





33 


2 


81 





33 





33 


1 


72 





33 





33 


1 


70 





33 





33 





33 





33 


3 


80 





33 





33 





33 





33 






44 


1 


92 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 





44 



27 



Table 6. Continue. 











1 st line 


2 nd line 




Increase 


Assignment 






Rank 




Rank 




Rank 




Rank 


Female 


Male 


Survive 


No 


Percentile 


No 


Percentile 


No 


Percentile 


No. 


Percentile 


HOCP00-930 


HOCP91-552 


455 


16 


71 


5 


82 


1 


76 


1 


94 


HOCP00-930 


L00-266 


496 


46 


97 


14 


98 


7 


97 


2 


96 


HOCPOO-930 


L02-353 


450 


13 


63 


5 


83 


1 


76 





44 


HOCP00-930 


L99-233 


834 


85 


98 


32 


99 


21 


99 


3 


96 


HOCPOO-930 


TUCCP77-042 


188 


15 


96 


3 


93 





33 





44 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP89-846 


249 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP00-950 


L98-209 


244 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP00-950 


LCP85-384 


360 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP01-517 


L98-207 


985 


43 


79 


8 


77 


4 


83 


3 


95 


HOCPO 1-523 


L02-316 


248 


17 


93 


3 


85 


2 


94 


2 


99 


HOCPO 1-523 


L98-209 


491 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCPO 1-523 


LCP85-384 


470 


43 


97 


7 


92 


2 


87 





44 


HOCPO 1-529 


L99-226 


243 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCPO 1-541 


HOCP92-618 


239 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCPO 1-544 


L99-233 


202 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP01-553 


L99-233 


825 


41 


84 


14 


94 


6 


94 


1 


90 


HOCPO 1-558 


HOCP92-618 


152 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCPO 1-558 


HOCP97-609 


252 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCPO 1-558 


LCP82-089 


225 


5 


54 


1 


67 





33 





44 


HOCPO 1-561 


L97-137 


248 


10 


75 


1 


61 





33 





44 


HOCPO 1-561 


L99-226 


738 


15 


52 


4 


71 


1 


71 





44 


HOCPO 1-588 


TUCCP77-042 


244 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP85-384 


H095-988 


221 


6 


61 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP85-845 


H095-988 


479 


16 


67 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP85-845 


HOCP89-846 


239 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP85-845 


HOCP92-618 


251 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP85-845 


LCP82-089 


423 


18 


78 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP85-845 


LCP85-384 


1383 


35 


59 


4 


59 


1 


67 





44 


HOCP89-831 


LCP85-384 


464 


53 


99 


13 


98 


7 


98 


2 


98 


HOCP89-846 


H095-988 


462 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP89-846 


H095-988 


233 


4 


49 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP89-846 


HOCP85-845 


247 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP89-846 


HOCP85-845 


250 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP89-846 


HOCP97-609 


252 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP89-846 


L02-316 


428 


4 


44 


1 


56 


1 


77 





44 


HOCP89-846 


LCP81-010 


482 


18 


72 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP91-552 


04P2 


240 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP9 1-555 


L98-209 


245 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP9 1-555 


LCP85-384 


487 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP92-618 


H095-988 


1455 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP92-618 


HOCP89-846 


122 


2 


48 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP92-618 


HOCP97-609 


502 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP92-618 


LCP85-384 


500 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP92-618 


LCP85-384 


252 





21 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP92-624 


04P16 


247 


10 


75 


1 


61 





33 





44 


HOCP92-624 


HOCP85-845 


502 


10 


52 





27 





33 





44 


HOCP92-624 


HOCP89-846 


126 


1 


43 


1 


76 





33 





44 



28 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP96-509 
HOCP96-509 
HOCP96-509 
HOCP96-509 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-549 
HOCP96-561 
HOCP97-609 
HOCP97-609 
HOCP97-609 
HOCP97-609 
HOCP97-609 
HoCP85-845 



HOCP91-552 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-561 

L00-266 

L02-316 

L02-353 

L92-312 

L94-428 

L97-128 

L98-207 

L98-209 

L99-226 

L99-226 

L99-233 

L99-233 

LCP82-089 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP9 1-552 

L00-266 

L02-316 

L97-137 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

L02-325 

L99-233 

CP77-310 

L00-266 

L02-316 

LCP85-384 

04P3 

04P5 

04P7 

HOCP91-552 

L02-325 

L99-233 

HOCP01-517 

L99-226 

H095-988 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP92-618 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

HOCP9 1-552 



473 

205 

1119 

498 

479 

905 

253 

501 

496 

218 

1462 

842 

1184 

482 

1206 

1196 

876 

1294 

1844 

447 

243 

480 

503 

117 

457 

174 

256 

463 

433 

244 

229 

245 

471 

679 

966 

1078 

224 

471 

469 

232 

242 

206 

343 

241 

239 

674 

254 



18 

5 

30 
17 


8 
12 
8 

70 
43 
67 
18 
38 
57 
20 
98 
94 

7 
31 
8 

13 
7 
19 
11 

3 
15 


7 








10 
6 






74 
57 
61 
69 
21 
21 
66 
57 
48 
21 
82 
85 
87 
72 
66 
82 
55 
95 
85 
21 
63 
90 
48 
21 
62 
75 
94 
57 
21 
46 
91 
21 
21 
45 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
63 
59 
21 
21 
21 



10 

3 
7 




1 



7 
4 
17 
5 

18 
12 
6 
16 
22 

1 
1 



2 
2 
4 


1 












1 
1 







97 
27 
58 
90 
27 
27 
27 
55 
27 
27 
69 
69 
90 
81 
92 
81 
74 
86 
84 
27 
63 
55 
27 
27 
27 
84 
75 
79 
27 
27 
67 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
59 
63 
27 
27 
27 



6 





2 













2 

2 

8 

1 

2 

8 

1 

4 

13 















1 

1 































1 







96 

33 
33 
83 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
71 
77 
93 
73 
72 
92 
69 
81 
93 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
82 
75 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
85 
33 
33 
33 



44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
88 
44 
92 
44 
44 
89 
44 
91 

44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
93 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
97 
44 

44 



29 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



HoCP96-540 

LO 1-281 

LO 1-283 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

L02-316 

L02-316 

L02-320 

L02-325 

L02-325 

L02-325 

L02-325 

L02-336 

L02-342 

L02-342 

L02-342 

L02-353 

L02-353 

L02-353 

L02-353 

L89-113 

L9 1-281 

L9 1-281 

L9 1-281 

L94-426 

L94-426 

L94-426 

L94-428 

L94-428 

L94-432 

L94-432 

L94-433 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-137 



OP13 

04P3 

LCP81-010 

04P3 

HOCP9 1-552 

L97-128 

LCP85-384 

H095-988 

HOCP9 1-552 

LCP85-384 

H095-988 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP92-618 

LCP81-010 

TUCCP77-042 

H095-988 

HOCP92-618 

L98-209 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP92-618 

L98-209 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

HOCP85-845 

L02-325 

L99-226 

HOCP89-846 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

HOCP89-846 

LCP85-384 

04P16 

L02-316 

TUCCP77-042 

04P10 

HOCP85-845 

HOCP89-846 

LO 1-299 

L91-255 

L98-209 

L99-226 

L99-226 

L99-233 

LCP81-010 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

L99-233 



221 

484 

415 

233 

247 

227 

248 

465 

243 

370 

689 

804 

468 

221 

241 

234 

252 

237 

233 

244 

236 

195 

249 

499 

495 

404 

243 

453 

233 

464 

249 

225 

246 

474 

466 

228 

443 

242 

236 

475 

231 

927 

1356 

453 

941 

367 

485 




20 
8 
17 
11 
8 


5 






26 
12 


16 

15 
13 


35 
9 
10 






9 

40 
24 
2 

22 


30 
14 
34 
46 
12 
45 
24 
24 



21 
77 
51 
94 
79 
71 
21 
21 
53 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
98 
85 
21 
21 
93 
21 
89 
91 
21 
21 
93 
54 
77 
51 
69 
21 
21 
21 
72 
96 
86 
44 
84 
21 
21 
89 
88 
72 
69 
60 
82 
90 
83 




3 
1 
3 
6 
1 









5 
2 


4 

1 
4 


6 
2 
1 
3 
1 



2 
7 
6 

4 


8 
3 
5 

17 

6 
4 
3 



27 
72 
57 
88 
97 
67 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
27 
96 
78 
27 
27 
94 
27 
64 
96 
27 
27 
85 
70 
63 
73 
65 
27 
27 
27 
77 
91 
88 
27 
80 
27 
27 
93 
89 
71 
87 
27 
73 
82 
72 



33 
33 
78 
89 
96 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
98 
95 
33 
33 
97 
33 
86 
90 
33 
33 
73 
79 
85 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
74 
89 
33 
33 
33 
33 
86 
89 
75 
91 
33 
74 
33 
85 



44 
44 
94 
44 
97 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
93 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 
90 
44 
44 
44 
44 
44 



30 



Table 6. Continue. 











1 st line 


2 nd line 




Increase 


Assignment 






Rank 




Rank 




Rank 




Rank 


Female 


Male 


Survive 


No 


Percentile 


No 


Percentile 


No 


Percentile 


No. 


Percentile 


L98-197 


L99-226 


957 





21 





27 





33 





44 


L98-207 


HOCP85-845 


246 





21 





27 





33 





44 


L98-209 


H095-988 


242 





21 





27 





33 





44 


L98-209 


HOCP89-846 


242 





21 





27 





33 





44 


L99-226 


04P3 


223 


3 


46 


1 


69 





33 





44 


L99-226 


HOCP85-845 


453 


18 


75 


1 


56 





33 





44 


L99-226 


HOCP89-846 


495 





21 





27 





33 





44 


L99-226 


LCP85-384 


435 





21 





27 





33 





44 


L99-226 


LCP85-384 


676 


21 


65 


2 


59 





33 





44 


L99-226 


LCP85-384 


234 


16 


92 


3 


87 


1 


88 





44 


L99-233 


HOCP85-845 


468 


22 


81 


4 


78 


3 


92 


3 


98 


L99-233 


HOCP91-552 


417 


14 


69 


3 


75 


1 


78 





44 


L99-233 


LCP85-384 


226 


5 


54 


1 


67 


1 


90 





44 


LCP81-010 


H095-988 


1206 


21 


49 


4 


60 


3 


79 


1 


89 


LCP81-010 


H095-988 


241 





21 





27 





33 





44 


LCP81-010 


HOCP89-846 


760 


30 


74 


3 


60 


1 


70 





44 


LCP81-010 


L02-316 


225 


6 


61 


3 


89 


2 


95 





44 


LCP81-010 


L02-316 


218 





21 





27 





33 





44 


LCP81-010 


L97-128 


244 





21 





27 





33 





44 


LCP81-010 


L98-207 


793 


23 


63 


9 


83 


1 


69 


1 


91 


LCP81-010 


L98-209 


241 


8 


67 





27 





33 





44 


LCP81-010 


L99-226 


468 





21 





27 





33 





44 


LCP81-010 


L99-233 


320 


17 


86 


4 


87 


1 


82 





44 


LCP81-010 


LCP82-089 


117 


2 


49 





27 





33 





44 


LCP81-010 


LCP85-384 


960 


5 


43 


1 


54 


1 


68 





44 


LCP82-089 


HOCP85-845 


240 





21 





27 





33 





44 


LCP85-384 


04P4 


676 


28 


77 


6 


80 


4 


91 


2 


95 


LCP86-454 


04P7 


1132 


86 


95 


22 


95 


3 


80 





44 


N27 


LCP85-384 


1240 


19 


47 


3 


57 


1 


68 


1 


88 


TUCCP77-042 


04P16 


226 


7 


65 


1 


67 





33 





44 


US79-010 


H095-988 


240 





21 





27 





33 





44 


US79-010 


L02-316 


235 


8 


69 


1 


65 


1 


87 





44 


US79-010 


LCP85-384 


248 


2 


43 





27 





33 





44 


US96-002 


04P1 


202 





21 





27 





33 





44 


US99-002 


CP77-310 


216 





21 





27 





33 





44 


US99-002 


LCP85-384 


242 


11 


79 





27 





33 





44 



2005 Crossing Series 



CP83-644 


L02-316 


930 


H09 1-572 


HOCP96-540 


723 


H09 1-572 


HOCP96-540 


464 


H095-988 


HOCP02-623 


122 


H095-988 


HOCP96-540 


665 


HOCPOO-930 


05P4 


237 


HOCP00-930 


HOCP02-610 


974 


HOCPOO-930 


L99-226 


146 



15 


52 





25 





25 


7 


80 





25 





25 





25 





25 



3 


66 





29 





29 


1 


78 





29 





29 





29 





29 



2 


68 





31 





31 


1 


90 





31 





31 





31 





31 



31 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



HOCPOO-930 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP02-620 

HOCP02-623 

HOCP02-652 

HOCP03-757 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-648 

HOCP92-648 

HOCP95-951 

HOCP95-951 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-561 

HOCP96-561 

HOCP96-561 

HOCP96-561 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

L02-316 

L02-316 

L02-316 

L02-316 

L03-387 

L03-387 

L03-396 

L03-396 



LCP82-089 

L04-425 

L99-226 

L99-233 

L94-426 

HOCP98-781 

HOCP02-610 

L04-425 

HOCP91-552 

L02-316 

L94-426 

05P1 

05P2 

05P3 

L99-233 

HOCP02-610 

HOCP02-623 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP96-540 

L02-316 

L99-226 

L99-233 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

HOCP02-623 

LCP85-384 

L99-233 

L99-233 

HOCP89-846 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HOCP02-652 

HOCP98-781 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP98-781 

L04-410 

L99-226 

L99-226 

USO 1-040 

HOCP96-540 

L99-233 



217 
180 
910 
379 
110 
173 
68 
141 
153 
330 
444 
798 
374 
253 
1021 
657 
537 
718 
2620 
1633 
214 
465 
1060 
2199 
221 
168 
216 
142 
379 
1006 
1565 
1116 
204 
403 
204 
449 
184 
228 
203 
434 
170 
77 
121 
1589 
183 
128 
159 





78 
76 
8 



10 

16 
1 

12 


19 


68 
58 


39 
45 
89 
6 

4 

27 
26 



30 




28 
13 
12 
21 




53 
4 

12 



25 
25 
91 
99 
86 
25 
25 
25 
83 
25 
69 
50 
64 
25 
25 
63 
25 
25 
59 
69 
25 
90 
74 
71 
61 
25 
54 
98 
84 
25 
25 
61 
25 
25 
25 
82 
85 
79 
95 
25 
25 
25 
25 
66 
56 
25 






16 

30 
3 



4 

1 

2 





6 
2 


11 
9 

20 


2 
8 
6 


3 



3 


1 




5 
1 

4 



29 
29 
91 
99 
97 
29 
29 
29 
96 
29 
61 
29 
74 
29 
29 
29 
29 
29 
61 
59 
29 
94 
79 
80 
29 
29 
81 
98 
89 
29 
29 
64 
29 
29 
29 
76 
29 
29 
73 
29 
29 
29 
29 
65 
75 
29 
95 







5 

12 

1 







2 







2 











2 

1 



2 

4 

6 





1 



5 





2 







3 





1 









1 

1 



1 



31 
31 
84 
99 
93 
31 
31 
31 
96 
31 
31 
31 
82 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
64 
62 
31 
76 
74 
71 
31 
31 
79 
31 
97 
31 
31 
67 
31 
31 
31 
88 
31 
31 
81 
31 
31 
31 
31 
63 
83 
31 
86 



32 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



L04-425 

L9 1-281 

L9 1-281 

L92-312 

L94-433 

L94-433 

L94-433 

L94-433 

L94-433 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L98-209 

L98-209 

L99-226 

L99-226 

L99-226 

L99-233 

L99-233 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

TUCCP77-042 

TUCCP77-042 

USO 1-040 

US01-040 

US79-010 

US79-010 



HOCP02-610 

HOCP96-540 

L0 1-299 

L99-226 

05P3 

HOCP92-618 

HOCP96-540 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP02-652 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

L02-316 

L03-374 

L04-410 

L99-226 

L99-226 

L99-233 

L99-233 

LCP82-089 

USO 1-040 

HOCP9 1-552 

LCP82-089 

05P2 

HOCP96-540 

L94-426 

05P1 

05P3 

HOCP03-757 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP9 1-552 

L03-374 

L04-410 

L99-233 

HOCP02-610 

HOCP03-757 

L99-226 

LCP82-089 

L99-226 

POLY 

L99-226 

USO 1-040 

HOCP96-540 

L99-226 



630 
654 

245 
362 
450 
735 
291 
1368 
206 
145 
101 
243 
205 
542 
485 
214 
418 
534 
1063 
868 
1693 
1050 
88 
217 
735 
187 
240 
615 
312 
293 
337 
656 
273 
346 
434 
1148 
2545 
264 
102 
277 
1381 
228 
462 
935 
342 
920 
721 





26 
20 


42 







9 





18 

9 


55 







107 
37 
147 
42 



9 

14 


28 







8 
22 

1 




31 
83 





9 



11 

6 
23 


53 
48 



25 
71 
89 
25 
93 
25 
25 
25 
76 
25 
25 
87 
76 
25 
96 
25 
25 
25 
94 
75 
92 
71 
25 
73 
54 
25 
97 
25 
25 
25 
57 
67 
50 
25 
25 
61 
66 
25 
25 
64 
25 
78 
51 
58 
25 
81 
83 




5 


2 



2 


4 
3 


11 




25 


17 
5 

1 
3 

1 





1 




5 
6 


3 

3 
6 
4 

9 
10 



29 
77 
29 
29 
70 
29 
29 
29 
82 
29 
29 
90 
88 
29 
92 
29 
29 
29 
93 
29 
83 
72 
29 
71 
66 
29 
67 
29 
29 
29 
29 
60 
29 
29 
29 
70 
63 
29 
29 
84 
29 
86 
85 
68 
29 
83 
87 





3 





1 







2 





2 

1 



9 







10 



6 

3 



1 

2 



1 

















2 

3 





2 



2 

3 

1 



5 

4 



31 
77 
31 
31 
69 
31 
31 
31 
95 
31 
31 
91 
80 
31 
98 
31 
31 
31 
94 
31 
73 
72 
31 
78 
70 
31 
75 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
66 
66 
31 
31 
89 
31 
92 
87 
65 
31 
83 
85 



33 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



US99-002 


HOCP96-540 


242 


US99-004 


L04-425 


659 


US99-004 


L99-226 


784 


2006 Crossing 


Series 




CP83-644 


HOCP04-836 


239 


CP83-644 


HOCP89-846 


211 


CP83-644 


LCP81-010 


210 


H095-988 


L99-233 


729 


H095-988 


LCP85-384 


379 


HOCP00-905 


HOCP04-836 


981 


HOCP00-930 


L04-408 


474 


HOCP00-930 


L99-233 


476 


HOCP00-933 


06P3 


447 


HOCPOO-933 


L04-410 


433 


HOCPOO-933 


L92-312 


215 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP00-930 


952 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP0 1-523 


377 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP04-836 


166 


HOCP00-950 


HOCP9 1-552 


300 


HOCP00-950 


L99-226 


82 


HOCP00-950 


LCP85-384 


157 


HOCP00-950 


LCP85-384 


193 


HOCP0 1-523 


L99-233 


215 


HOCP0 1-561 


L99-233 


196 


HOCP0 1-827 


LCP85-384 


229 


HOCP02-610 


L04-410 


1217 


HOCP02-618 


HOCP99-825 


222 


HOCP02-618 


L99-226 


408 


HOCP02-618 


L99-226 


472 


HOCP02-623 


HOCP0 1-523 


210 


HOCP02-623 


HOCP04-836 


236 


HOCP02-623 


HOCP91-552 


464 


HOCP02-623 


HOCP96-540 


486 


HOCP02-652 


HOCP96-540 


237 


HOCP04-809 


HOCP04-829 


180 


HOCP04-809 


L99-233 


460 


HOCP04-810 


HOCP96-561 


201 


HOCP04-824 


HOCP96-540 


492 


HOCP04-827 


HOCP02-623 


236 


HOCP04-829 


L05-448 


141 


HOCP04-843 


HOCP04-809 


216 


HOCP04-843 


L99-233 


236 


HOCP04-843 


L99-233 


657 


HOCP85-845 


HOCP96-540 


738 


HOCP89-831 


HOCP04-836 


229 



5 55 
25 
25 



29 
29 
29 



31 
31 
31 





20 


56 



44 
47 


49 


34 
36 


24 
18 
24 
21 
28 






46 



36 


13 




18 


55 

28 



31 
80 
31 
71 
31 
31 
78 
83 
31 
89 
31 
63 
80 
31 
73 
99 
98 
87 
95 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
82 
31 
31 
72 
31 
31 
69 
31 
31 
31 
31 
94 
31 
31 
75 
31 
92 






33 


2 


80 





33 


5 


77 





33 





33 


3 


76 


3 


76 





33 


5 


83 





33 


1 


66 


5 


84 





33 


2 


76 


4 


98 


3 


91 


1 


74 


2 


80 





33 





33 





33 





33 





33 


2 


70 





33 





33 


9 


92 





33 





33 


1 


75 





33 





33 





33 





33 


3 


93 





33 





33 


12 


89 





33 


1 


72 



34 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



HOCP89-846 
HOCP89-846 
HOCP9 1-552 
HOCP9 1-552 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-624 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP92-648 
HOCP93-749 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP95-951 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-540 
HOCP96-561 
HOCP96-561 
HOCP96-561 
HOCP97-609 



L99-233 

LCP81-010 

06P1 

HOCP04-809 

HOCP04-824 

HOCP04-836 

HOCP04-836 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-561 

L01-299 

L02-316 

L04-408 

L04-410 

L05-445 

L05-448 

L99-233 

LCP81-010 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

HOCP02-623 

HOCP04-824 

HOCP04-836 

L04-410 

L92-312 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP00-905 

HOCP04-824 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP96-522 

HOCP96-540 

L01-299 

L04-410 

L04-425 

06P1 

06P2 

HOCP02-618 

06P1 

L04-410 

L05-448 

HOCP04-807 



223 

242 

114 

625 

239 

243 

252 

152 

504 

1391 

465 

493 

697 

232 

186 

986 

214 

1156 

1338 

240 

486 

457 

242 

230 

228 

245 

500 

424 

241 

472 

486 

421 

488 

416 

390 

238 

695 

407 

230 

180 

419 

1053 

211 

231 

231 

219 

232 





















152 
52 


85 






33 






63 
53 
36 
27 


24 






45 
29 






35 






24 












27 





31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
87 
89 
31 
92 
31 
31 
31 
98 
31 
31 
31 
95 
90 
96 
91 
31 
82 
31 
31 
31 
80 
67 
31 
31 
31 
77 
31 
31 
31 
85 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
94 
31 













30 



21 







8 
5 

17 
7 

5 



2 
2 




11 



5 






7 




33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
94 
33 
33 
96 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
87 
82 
99 
97 
33 
92 
33 
33 
33 
70 
69 
33 
33 
33 
96 
33 
33 
33 
94 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
97 
33 



35 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



HOCP97-609 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

L01-315 

LOl-315 

L02-316 

L02-320 

L02-320 

L02-320 

L02-320 

L03-396 

L03-396 

L04-407 

L04-407 

L04-408 

L04-408 

L04-408 

L04-408 

L04-425 

L04-425 

L04-425 

L04-425 

L04-425 

L05-408 

L05-445 

L05-445 

L05-448 

L05-450 

L05-451 

L05-451 

L05-451 

L05-460 

L05-460 

L05-460 

L05-460 

L05-460 

L05-460 

L9 1-281 

L93-399 

L94-426 

L94-426 

L94-428 

L94-428 

L94-432 



LO 1-283 

HOCP02-610 

HOCP04-824 

HOCP96-540 

L05-448 

L99-226 

LO 1-299 

LCP81-010 

06P2 

06P2 

HOCP04-824 

HOCP96-522 

L99-226 

HOCP91-552 

L04-410 

HOCP96-540 

L99-233 

HOCP04-807 

HOCP85-845 

L05-448 

L99-233 

06P1 

06P3 

HOCP9 1-552 

L02-316 

L99-233 

HOCP02-623 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

06P1 

06P3 

06P6 

HOCP96-522 

L99-233 

HOCP04-807 

HOCP85-845 

HOCP96-540 

L04-410 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HOCP89-848 

HOCP04-836 

HOCP04-836 

L99-233 

HOCP04-824 

L05-448 

L04-410 



235 

380 

160 

374 

194 

189 

246 

448 

220 

174 

203 

121 

341 

209 

479 

1176 

324 

452 

232 

464 

939 

229 

398 

450 

179 

245 

229 

211 

130 

221 

238 

219 

200 

428 

211 

480 

693 

215 

386 

147 

218 

479 

201 

448 

228 

1094 

964 



29 
22 
16 
36 


22 
42 
14 









14 

71 



47 





18 


30 
39 


26 


45 





30 






94 
66 
84 
81 
31 
31 
76 
79 
67 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
67 
31 
71 
31 
31 
85 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
73 
31 
31 
97 
78 
31 
65 
31 
31 
91 
31 
31 
31 
31 
69 
31 
31 
31 



5 
5 
3 
7 


4 
4 
5 











12 


8 





2 


2 
6 

7 


2 




5 






93 

84 
91 
90 
33 
33 
86 
78 
95 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
83 
33 
33 
88 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
79 
33 
33 
81 
85 
33 
85 
33 
33 
74 
33 
33 
33 
33 
82 
33 
33 
33 



36 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 






L94-432 

L94-433 

L94-433 

L94-433 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L98-197 

L98-197 

L98-197 

L98-207 

L98-207 

L99-226 

L99-233 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP82-089 

LCP82-089 

LCP82-089 

LCP82-089 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

USO 1-040 

USO 1-040 

US79-010 

US93-015 

US96-002 

US99-002 

US99-004 



L99-233 

HOCP00-930 

HOCP96-540 

L04-410 

HOCP02-623 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

L0 1-283 

L0 1-299 

L04-410 

L92-312 

HOCP00-930 

HOCP04-807 

HOCP96-540 

L94-428 

LCP81-010 

L04-410 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-561 

LO 1-283 

LO 1-299 

L04-410 

L99-226 

L99-233 

L99-233 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP96-561 

L04-408 

L92-312 

06P3 

H095-988 

HOCP96-540 

L02-325 

L92-312 

HOCP91-552 

LO 1-283 

L99-226 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP96-540 

LCP85-384 

H095-988 



2007 Crossing Series 



CP79-348 
CP79-348 



HOCP02-610 
L99-226 



466 

220 

947 

1585 

214 

244 

486 

134 

429 

489 

161 

227 

235 

477 

301 

444 

429 

840 

951 

679 

819 

480 

723 

1129 

713 

969 

228 

202 

239 

229 

724 

860 

1194 

483 

907 

480 

228 

723 

186 

244 

210 

467 



950 
691 



39 

8 

94 

79 

16 
25 



10 
64 













2 


100 






41 



100 
47 
47 
25 












39 




25 
79 











75 
63 
83 
65 
70 
84 
31 
70 
96 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
62 
31 
92 
31 
31 
31 
75 
31 
76 
68 
64 
88 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
31 
73 
31 
31 
88 
87 
31 
31 
31 
31 



23 
19 



2 


16 
8 
2 

15 


7 







1 


15 






1 

3 
2 
2 






2 



1 

3 







71 
33 
88 
73 
80 
98 
33 
33 
86 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
67 
33 
89 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
66 
70 
67 
78 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
33 
69 
33 
33 
72 
69 
33 
33 
33 
33 



37 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



H091-572 

H091-572 

H095-988 

H095-988 

H095-988 

H095-988 

HOCP00-930 

HOCP00-930 

HOCP00-930 

HOCP00-930 

HOCPOO-950 

HOCP00-950 

HOCPOO-950 

HOCPO 1-523 

HOCP02-610 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP02-618 

HOCP02-620 

HOCP02-620 

HOCP02-620 

HOCP02-623 

HOCP02-623 

HOCP04-809 

HOCP04-809 

HOCP04-810 

HOCP04-838 

HOCP05-902 

HOCP85-845 

HOCP89-831 

HOCP89-831 

HOCP89-846 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP92-624 

HOCP93-746 

HOCP95-951 

HOCP95-951 

HOCP95-951 

HOCP96-540 



07P2 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

L99-233 

L99-233 

L99-233 

07P2 

HOCP02-618 

L00-266 

L99-233 

HOCP96-540 

L06-001 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

HOCP96-540 

L05-450 

L06-001 

L99-226 

HOCP02-623 

L99-226 

L99-226 

HOCP04-803 

L99-226 

L99-226 

L99-233 

TUC95-25 

TUC95-25 

L99-226 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

LCP85-384 

L99-233 

L99-226 

HOCP02-623 

HOCP91-552 

HOCP96-561 

L01-299 

LO 1-299 

L04-425 

L99-226 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

L99-233 

HOCP05-923 

HOCP96-540 

LO 1-299 

HOCPOO-950 



214 

247 

1210 

235 

699 

466 

246 

250 

1052 

410 

457 

485 

575 

836 

948 

248 

707 

214 

220 

480 

229 

201 

252 

243 

430 

265 

132 

481 

226 

454 

713 

450 

930 

1011 

1043 

970 

237 

1102 

955 

481 

1281 

1429 

249 

210 

1160 

858 

897 



24 
3 

16 
7 
5 

16 
35 
7 
6 
34 
13 

28 
12 
23 
13 
3 
3 
6 
3 

14 
8 
9 
6 
14 
4 
8 

42 
5 
4 
10 
32 
11 
9 

49 
78 
16 
24 
69 

9 
75 
58 




61 

67 
50 
30 
54 
36 
50 
94 
70 
43 
30 
97 
54 
7 
65 
85 
70 
94 
33 
17 
57 
36 
7 
91 
48 
74 
82 
63 
46 
46 
92 
26 
15 
24 
66 
26 
77 
81 
98 
70 
48 
85 
7 

80 
95 
96 
7 



38 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-561 

HOCP96-561 

HOCP96-561 

HOCP96-561 

HOCP99-825 

HoCPOO-950 

LO 1-283 

LO 1-283 

LO 1-283 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

LO 1-299 

L02-325 

L04-408 

L04-408 

L04-408 

L04-425 

L04-434 

L05-445 

L05-450 

L05-451 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-457 

L05-459 

L06-003 

L06-010 

L06-010 

L06-010 

L06-010 

L06-010 

L06-025 

L06-026 

L06-040 

L91-281 



HOCPOO-950 

HOCP89-831 

L02-325 

L06-001 

L06-016 

L99-226 

LCP85-384 

L99-233 

Poly (86, 119, 

L99-226 

L99-226 

LCP85-384 

HOCP96-540 

L99-233 

Poly(55,94) 

L99-226 

HOCP04-803 

HOCP96-540 

TUC95-25 

L99-226 

LO 1-299 

L05-45O 

07P2 

07P1 

HOCP02-610 

HOCP9 1-552 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-561 

LO 1-299 

L04-425 

L04-425 

L99-226 

L99-233 

L99-233 

L99-233 

LCP81-010 

L99-226 

L99-233 

07P2 

HOCP96-540 

L99-226 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

LCP8 1-010 

L99-226 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP02-620 



642 
448 
215 
735 
239 
246 
460 
434 
183 
1199 
246 
741 
165 
244 
240 
1405 
236 
1800 
267 
1172 
221 
490 
183 
407 
245 
852 
426 
245 
695 
1096 
240 
717 
240 
482 
1036 
248 
475 
743 
682 
1189 
1053 
251 
655 
236 
230 
251 
199 



11 

8 
16 
7 
10 
7 
6 
10 
12 
21 

8 
8 
8 

23 
13 
48 
12 
34 
17 
4 


1 

11 
7 
6 
12 
36 
8 
19 
5 
13 
17 
12 
24 
19 
8 

57 



20 
4 
10 
14 




43 
7 

76 
52 
63 
79 
36 
33 
89 
24 
99 
7 
85 
70 
70 
40 
89 
59 
82 
63 
97 
21 
7 
7 
15 
30 
40 
55 
43 
70 
70 
57 
51 
59 
40 
85 
87 
57 
27 
85 
7 
7 

66 
43 
80 
91 
7 



39 



Table 6. Continue. 














Survive 


1 st line 


2 nd line 


Increase 


Assignment 


Female Male 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No Percentile 


Rank 
No. Percentile 



L9 1-281 

L9 1-281 

L91-281 

L94-428 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L97-128 

L98-197 

L98-197 

L98-197 

L98-207 

L98-207 

L98-209 

L99-233 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP81-010 

LCP85-384 

N27 

N27 

N27 

N27 

TUC89-28 

TUCCP77-042 

US79-010 

US79-010 

US79-010 

US99-004 



L06-001 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 

L06-023 

HOCP05-923 

HOCP96-540 

HOCP96-540 

LO 1-299 

L04-425 

L99-233 

L99-233 

L99-233 

07P2 

HOCP85-845 

L99-226 

L94-428 

Poly(25 1,252 

L99-226 

L99-226 

HOCP00-950 

HOCP02-620 

HOCP96-540 

L06-016 

L99-233 

L99-233 

LCP85-384 

HOCP00-950 

LO 1-299 

L99-226 

L99-226 

LCP85-384 

HOCP01-517 

Poly(242,249 

HOCP96-540 

LO 1-299 

LCP85-384 

LCP85-384 



936 
220 
183 
478 
220 
1130 
436 
247 
251 
624 
1163 
250 
890 
244 
675 
449 
710 
596 
227 
263 
1191 
970 
193 
1120 
1356 
1524 
218 
1395 
928 
1544 
1209 
141 
382 
1220 
693 
494 
235 



14 
13 
3 
13 
4 

60 
17 
7 

10 
8 
2 




8 

3 

14 
21 
8 

6 
11 
22 
3 

32 
1 

59 
18 
5 
11 
5 
15 
6 



36 

92 
40 
59 
46 
88 
78 
61 
7 

40 
19 
21 
7 
7 
7 
7 

26 
7 

30 
88 
46 
21 
7 
17 
21 
33 
33 
54 
14 
77 
36 
75 
63 
15 
52 
27 
74 



40 



2009 LOUISIANA SUGARCANE VARIETY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 
NURSERY AND INFIELD VARIETY TRIALS 

Michael Pontif 1 , Keith Bischoff , Kenneth Gravois 1 , 

Gert Hawkins 1 , and Sonny Viator 2 
'Sugar Research Station and 2 Iberia Research Station 

Edwis Dufrene and Tom Tew 
USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Unit 



Five years after the initial hybridization of parents, clones that have met or exceeded 
criteria for desired characteristics at previous selection stages are assigned permanent numbers 
by each of the Louisiana Sugarcane Variety Development Programs. The LSU program assigns 
variety designations of "L," and the USDA program assigns variety designations of "Ho" and 
"HoCP." These varieties are planted in replicated nursery and infield tests at locations across the 
southern Louisiana sugarcane-growing areas. 

One objective of the nursery and infield stages is to identify and select varieties that will 
perform well across the range of environments a commercial variety will encounter in Louisiana. 
Nursery tests are initially planted at three on-station locations (USDA-ARS - Ardoyne Farm, 
Iberia Research Station, and Sugar Research Station) during the year of assignment, and four to 
five additional and different off-station locations are planted the year after assignment. There are 
off-station nurseries, Newton Cane, Inc. (Bunkie), Justin Frederick Farm (Cecilia), Michael 
Melancon (Cecilia), and Landry Farms (Paincourtville), along with the two infield trial locations 
at Blackberry Farms (Vacherie) and Sugarland Acres, Inc. (Youngsville). Both the LSU and 
USDA varieties were planted at each location. The locations, soil types, dates of planting and 
dates of harvest are listed in Table 1. 

The on-station nursery trials were planted in single row (6-foot centers), 1 6-foot-long 
plots with 4-foot alleys. The off-station nurseries were planted in single row, 20-foot plots with 
4-foot alleys. The infield tests were planted in two-row, 2 5 -foot plots with 5 -foot alleys. The 
experimental design for both nursery and infield tests was a randomized complete block with two 
replications per location. Five commercial check varieties, HoCP96-540, L99-226, L99-233, 
HoCPOO-950 and L0 1-283 were planted in all nursery and infield tests for comparison. 

Millable stalk counts for both nursery and infield tests were made in late July and August. 
A combine harvester and weigh wagon system was used to cut and weigh plots, respectively, for 
the infield tests. At harvest, 10-stalk samples were harvested by hand and stripped of leaves. A 
bundle weight was recorded to obtain a stalk weight (lb) estimate. Samples were then analyzed 
for sucrose content and fiber content. At the USDA-ARS laboratory, the pre-breaker press 
method was used to estimate fiber content. A juice sample was sent to the laboratory to obtain 
Brix and pol readings, which were used to estimate theoretical recoverable sugar per ton as 
estimated by the Winter-Carp formula as reported by Gravois and Milligan (1992). Samples sent 
to the Sugar Research Station sucrose laboratory were analyzed with a NIR Spectra Cane system 
to estimate sucrose and fiber content. Cane yield for the nursery tests was estimated as the 
product of stalk weight and stalk number. Cane yield for the infield tests was determined from 

41 



the plot weights and reduced 1 4 percent to account for extraneous trash. Sugar per acre was 
calculated as the product of sugar per ton and cane yield. 

The 2009 sugarcane crop experienced a wide range of growing conditions. Many parts of 
the sugarcane growing area in Louisiana experienced a summer drought then above average 
rainfall beginning in early September continuing through the end of the year. The planting 
season had above average rainfall but all experiments were planted in a timely manner, except an 
on-station nursery test was not planted at the Iberia Research Station. Harvest was wet and the 
crop was lodged. The sugarcane crop did experience freezing temperatures along with a rare 
snowfall on December 4, 2009. The majority of the Louisiana crop was harvested before the 
deleterious effects of the hard freezes of early January were experienced. Recommended cultural 
practices were followed at all test locations. 

The leading variety grown in Louisiana in 2009 was HoCP96-540, which occupied 50% 
of the state's sugarcane acreage. Therefore, HoCP96-540 was used as a standard for comparison 
and is highlighted in the tables. To adjust for missing data, the statistical analysis calculated 
least square means (SAS 9 Proc Mixed). Mean separation used least square means probability 
differences where P=0.05. Varieties that are significantly higher or lower than HoCP96-540 are 
denoted by a plus (+) or minus (-), respectively, next to the value for each trait. 



References: 

Gravois, K.A. and S.B. Milligan. 1992. Genetic relationships between fiber and sugarcane yield 

components. Crop Sci. 32: 62-66. 



42 



Table 1 . 2009 Location, soil texture, and planting and harvest dates for the nursery and infielc 


tests. 














Harvest 
Date 


Varieties 


Series 


Locationf 


Stage 


Soil 
Texture 


Planting 
Date 


2009 


No. 
Planted 


No. 
Harvested 


2004 


Blackberry Farms 


Infield 


Commerce silt loam 


08/12/05 


11/03/09 


50 


1 


2004 


Newton Cane, Inc. 


Nursery 


Moreland silt loam 


08/25/05 


10/28/09 


50 


1 


2005 


Sugarland Acres, Inc. 


Infield 


Coteau silt loam 


08/15/06 


11/18/09 


25 


1 


2005 


Blackberry Farms 


Infield 


Commerce silt loam 


08/16/06 


11/03/09 


25 


1 


2005 


Newton Cane, Inc. 


Nursery 


Moreland silt loam 


08/22/06 


10/29/09 


43 


2 


2005 


Justin Frederick Farms 


Nursery 


Baldwin silty clay 


08/24/06 


10/07/09 


43 


2 


2005 


Landry Farms 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


09/29/06 


10/20/09 


43 


2 


2006 


Blackberry Farms 


Infield 


Commerce silt loam 


08/17/07 


11/03/09 


24 


2 


2006 


Sugarland Acres, Inc. 


Infield 


Coteau silt loam 


11/18/09 




24 





2006 


Newton Cane, Inc. 


Nursery 


Moreland silt loam 


08/15/07 


10/28/09 


45 


2 


2006 


Justin Frederick Farms 


Nursery 


Baldwin silty clay 


08/28/07 


10/07/09 


45 


2 


2006 


Landry Farms 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


08/21/07 


11/19/09 


45 


2 


2007 


Sugar Research Station 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


10/10/07 


11/30/09 


33 


2 


2007 


Ardoyne Farm-U.S.D.A 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


10/16/07 


12/10/09 


33 


2 


2007 


Iberia Research Station 


Nursery 


Baldwin silty clay 


10/15/07 


11/11/09 


33 


2 


2007 


Blackberry Farms 


Infield 


Commerce silt loam 


09/24/08 


12/16/09 


19 


4 


2007 


Newton Cane, Inc. 


Nursery 


Moreland silt loam 


08/28/08 


12/10/09 


19 


6 


2007 


Michael Melancon 


Nursery 


Baldwin silty clay 


09/26/08 


11/18/09 


19 


6 


2007 


Landry Farms 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


09/29/08 


11/19/09 


19 


6 


2008 


Sugar Research Station 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


10/10/08 


12/07/09 


21 


7 


2008 


Ardoyne Farm-U.S.D.A 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


10/16/08 


12/10/09 


21 


7 


2008 


Iberia Research Station 


Nursery 


Baldwin silty clay 


10/17/08 


11/11/09 


21 


7 


2008 


Blackberry Farms 


Infield 


Commerce silt loam 


08/10/09 




11 




2008 


Sugarland Acres, Inc. 


Infield 


Coteau silt loam 


08/26/09 




11 




2008 


Newton Cane, Inc. 


Nursery 


Moreland silt loam 


08/18/09 




25 




2008 


Michael Melancon 


Nursery 


Baldwin silty clay 


08/12/09 




25 




2008 


Landry Farms 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


08/19/09 




25 




2009 


Sugar Research Station 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


10/26/09 




35 




2009 


Ardoyne Farm- U.S.D.A. 


Nursery 


Commerce silt loam 


11/05/09 




35 





f Ardoyne-U.S.D.A. Ardoyne Farm (Chacahoula), Blackberry Farms (Vacherie), Iberia Research Station 
(Jeanerette), Newton Cane, Inc. (Bunkie), Sugar Research Station (St. Gabriel), Michael Melancon (Cecilia), Justin 
Frederick Farms (Cecilia), Sugarland Acres Inc. (Youngsville), Landry Farms (Paincourtville). 






43 



Table 2. Nursery third-stubble means of the 2004 "HoCP" assignment series on a Moreland silt 
loam soil at Newton Cane, Inc. in Bunkie, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 




(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


5935 


28.2- 


209 


1.39 


40656 


11.1 


Ho95-988 


6254 


30.0- 


209 


1.64 


37026 


10.9 


HoCP96-540 


9133 


45.2 


203 


2.05 


43742 


10.7 


L97-128 


7167 


34.1 


211 


1.92 


35574 


12.9 + 


HoCP04-838 


8620 


42.2 


203 


1.84 


46101 


13.8 + 



Table 3. Infield third-stubble means of the 2004 "HoCP" assignment series on a Commerce silt 
loam soil at Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 


Sugar 
per Acre 


Cane 
Yield 


Sugar 
Per Ton 


Stalk 
Weight 


Stalk 
Number 


Fiber 


LCP85-384 
Ho95-988 


(lbs/A) 
6559 
8503 


(tons/A) 
23.7 
34.4 


(lbs/ton) 
277 + 
247- 
259 


(lbs) 
1.17 
1.88 


(stalks/A) 
21515 
18982 


(%) 
12.1 
12.3 


HoCP96-540 


8921 


34.5 


1.77 


21288 


11.8 


L97-128 
HoCP04-838 


10121 
9897 


37.6 
34.8 


269 + 
284 + 


1.84 
1.82 


20948 
25410 


12.7 
12.8 



Table 4. Infield second-stubble means of the 2004 "HoCP" assignment series on a Commerce 
silt loam soil at Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 



LCP85-384 


8349- 


(tons/A) 
32.8- 
42.8 


(lbs/ton) 
256 
243 


(lbs) 
1.45 
1.99 


(stalks/A) 
25788 
23595 


(%) 

12.5 


HoCP96-540 


10391 


12.4 


L97-128 
L99-226 
HoCP04-838 


7705- 
8322- 
9834 


30.3- 
29.7- 
38.7 


255 
281 
256 


2.01 
2.12 
1.69 


18074- 

20835 

24729 


13.2 
11.1 
14.7 



Table 5. Infield second- stubble means of the 2004 "HoCP" assignment series on a Coteau silt 
loam soil at Sugarland Acres, Inc. in Youngsville, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 



LCP85-384 


8426- 


(tons/A) 

32.2- 


(lbs/ton) 
262 


(lbs) 
1.48- 


(stalks/A) 

22007 


(%) 
12.6 


HoCP96-540 


12287 


49.7 


248 


2.09 


20721 


13.0 


L97-128 
L99-226 
HoCP04-838 


8411- 
11898 
10071 - 


38.2- 

43.2 

42.3- 


220- 
276 + 
239 


1.95 
2.20 
1.86 


18263 
20457 
20078 


13.8 + 
12.5 
14.2 + 



44 



Table 6. Nursery second-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series on a Moreland 
silt loam soil at Newton Cane, Inc. in Bunkie, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


5661 


30.1 
39.5 
37.0 


188 
215 
225 


1.42- 
2.06 


42471 
33033 


10.9 


HoCP96-540 


8504 
8296 


12.0 


L97-128 


36119 


12.8 


L99-226 


8295 


39.9 


207 


2.34 


33941 


10.9 


HoCP05-902 


6534 


27.5 


238 


1.28- 


45375 


9.4- 


HoCP05-961 


6870 


30.2 


227 


1.66- 


37026 


12.2 



Table 7. Nursery second-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series on a Baldwin 
silty clay soil at J. Fredericks Farms in Cecilia, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


4625 


32.8 


144 


1.39 


47190 + 
26681 


11.0 


HoCP96-540 


1993 


1, mj t ,~S 


125 


11.2 


L97-128 


5377 


28.2 


191 + 


1.76 + 


32126 


12.7 


L99-226 


5691 


33.9 


166 + 


1.88 + 


35756 


11.2 


HoCP05-902 


5088 


26.9 


189 + 


1.30 


41564 + 


10.7 


HoCP05-961 


4461 


22.7 


196 + 


1.50 


30129 


12.5 



Table 8. Nursery second-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series on a Commerce 
silt loam soil at Landry Farms in Paincourtville, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


10279 


50.6 


204 


1.47 


69878 + 


n/a 


HoCP96-540 


7991 


34.1 

55.7 


234 
244 


1.95 

2.05 


35030 

54450 + 


n/a 


L97-128 


13547 


n/a 


L99-226 


9461 


46.9 


198- 


2.14 


43560 


n/a 


HoCP05-902 


13125 


53.2 


248 


1.80 


59351 + 


n/a 


HoCP05-961 


13937 


53.1 


262 


1.97 


54087 + 


n/a 



45 



Table 9. Infield second-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series on a Commerce 
. silt loam soil at Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


LCP85-384 


7755 


36.4 


213 


Ho95-988 


10439 


43.3 


241 


HoCP96-540 


7445 


33.4 


223 


L99-226 


9397 


42.7 


220 


HoCP05-902 


9493 


37.1 


255 


HoCP05-961 


11060 


42.8 


259 



(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


1.72 


22158 


11.6 


2.40 


21099 


12.4 


2.12 


19625 


■10,9 


2.61 


20494 


10.4 


1.81 


23519 


10.4 


2.03 


21402 


11.8 



Table 10. Infield second-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series on a Coteau silt 
loam soil at Sugarland Acres, Inc. in Youngsville, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


6831 


26.6 


257 


1.72- 


18415 


13.1 


Ho95-988 


8390 


32.1 


262 


1.88 


17394 


12.7 


HoCP96-540 


6533 


25.0 


259 


2.20 


11873 


12.0 


L99-226 


8884 


31.3 


284 


2.47 


14747 


12.2 


HoCP05-902 


10160 


37.3 


279 


1.68- 


16902 


12.9 


HoCP05-961 


8841 


34.0 


260 


1.75- 


15730 


13.3 



Table 1 1 . Nursery first-stubble means of the 2006 "HoCP" and "L" assignment series on a 
Moreland silt loam soil at Newton Cane, Inc. in Bunkie, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


6838- 


37.1- 


185 


1.47- 


50639 


10.9 


Ho95-988 


7311- 


39.2- 


188 


1.61- 


48824 


8.4- 


HoCP96-540 


9394 


51.2 


184 


2.01 


51002 


10.5 


L99-226 


8382 


40.5- 


207 


2.08 


39023 - 


9.8 


Ho06-537 


6012- 


33.7- 


179 


1.60- 


42108- 


9.7- 


Ho06-563 


7585- 


41.5- 


184 


1.76 


47190 


13.2 + 



46 



Table 12. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2006 "HoCP" and "L" assignment series on a 
■ Baldwin silty clay soil at J. Fredericks Farm in Cecilia, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 



LCP85-384 

Ho95-988 

HoCP96-540 

L99-226 

Ho06-537 

Ho06-563 



3581 
2903 
2941 
3052 
3108 
3566 




(lbs/ton) 
146 
101 
130 
121 
148 
122 



(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


1.34 


36300 


10.5 


1.72 


33941 


8.2 


1.48 


30855 


9.1 


2.09 + 


24503 


9.5 


1.53 


27225 


10.4 


1.95 + 


30674 


13.1 + 



Table 13. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2006 "HoCP" assignment series on a Commerce silt 
loam soil at Landry Farms in Paincourtville, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


11768 


54.2 


216- 


2.06 


52635 


10.3- 


Ho95-988 


18943 


74.8 


254 


2.13 


70422 


10.9 


HoCP96-540 


12639 


48.8 


259 


1.96 


49913 


12.4 


L99-226 


21260 


84.5 


252 


2.61 + 


64614 


11.5 


Ho06-537 


10009 


42.6 


231- 


1.74 


48461 


11.9 


Ho06-563 


15529 


64.5 


241 


2.32 + 


55902 


14.1 



Table 14. Infield plantcane means of the 2006 "HoCP" and 2007 "L" assignment series on 
Commerce silt loam soil at Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


HoCP96-540 


10715 


44.1 


245 


2.81 


18226 


11.4 


L99-226 


12415 


45.9 


271 


2.99 


16335 


10.8 


L0 1-283 


11014 


42.9 


257 


2.23- 


21440 


11.0 


HoCP06-530 


12765 


55.0 


232 


2.63 


20041 


11.8 


HoCP06-537 


13812 


53.9 


256 


2.62 


19511 


10.7 


HoCP06-563 


11582 


47.6 


244 


2.92 


20835 


13.4 


L07-057 


12916 


52.8 


245 


2.22- 


19020 


12.3 


L07-068 


12393 


49.6 


250 


1.96- 


23103 


13.8 



47 



Table 15. Nursery plantcane means of the 2007 "HoCP" and "L" assignment series on a 
Moreland silt loam soil at Newton Cane, Inc. in Bunkie, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


HoCP96-540 


4411 


2L9 


202 


2.04 


21236 


10.8 


L99-226 


7300 


34.6 


211 


2.60 


27044 


10.4 


L01-283 


5513 


24.4 


226 


1.83 


25229 


10.4 


L07-057 


9557 


43.5 


220 


2.24 


38841 


11.0 


L07-068 


5611 


24.1 


233 + 


1.53 


31581 


13.4 + 


HoCP07-604 


6722 


29.5 


228 


1.83 


32852 


11.9 + 


HoCP07-612 


4707 


26.1 


178- 


1.93 


26862 


10.5 


HoCP07-613 


5577 


27.3 


207 


2.16 


25229 


9.0- 


HoCP07-617 


4592 


20.3 


226 


1.75 


23413 


10.6 



Table 16. Nursery plantcane means of the 2007 "HoCP" and "L" assignment series on a, Baldwin 
silty clay soil at Melancon Farms in Henderson, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


HoCP96-540 


12540 


57.3 


219 


3.22 


35574 


11.3 


L99-226 


14608 


63.9 


229 


3.33 


38297 


11.3 


L01-283 


11104 


49.3 


226 


2.21- 


44831 + 


11.1 


L07-057 


13067 


57.5 


228 


2.43- 


47372 + 


12.9 


L07-068 


13110 


60.9 


215 


2.03- 


60077 + 


12.5 


HoCP07-604 


10018 


42.6- 


235 


1.87- 


45375 + 


11.4 


HoCP07-612 


9308- 


47.1 


197- 


2.49- 


37934 


10.5 


HoCP07-613 


11590 


54.2 


214 


3.10 


35030 


9.6 


HoCP07-617 


9462- 


42.8- 


221 


2.03- 


42290 + 


10.5 



Table 17. Nursery plantcane means of the 2007 "HoCP" and "L" assignment series on a, 
Commerce silt loam soil at Landry Farms in Paincourtville, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 
32126 


(%) 


HoCP96-540 


12173 


59.9 


204 


3.73 


10.8 


L99-226 


11322 


48.7 


235 + 


2.63 


37934 


11.2 


L01-283 


10097 


45.4 


223 + 


2.43 


37389 


11.2 


L07-057 


12540 


57.2 


220 + 


2.04 


56265 + 


12.3 


L07-068 


12290 


54.6 


225 + 


2.10 


52454 + 


12.4 


HoCP07-604 


11684 


48.2 


242 + 


2.53 


38115 


12.5 


HoCP07-612 


12945 


60.4 


215 


2.95 


41019 + 


10.6 


HoCP07-613 


12539 


55.3 


227 + 


2.89 


38297 


10.3 


HoCP07-617 


10532 


44.5 


237 + 


2.26 


39386 


11.3 



48 



Table 18. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2007 "L" assignment series on a Commerce silt loam 
■ soil at U.S.D.A-Ardoyne Farm in Chacahoula, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


LCP85-384 


11836 


49.5 


239 


Ho95-988 


16231 


65.0 


250 


HoCP96-540 


15489 


59.7 


260 


L99-226 


18389 


73.2 


251 


L07-057 


13441 


56.3 


240 


L07-068 


19473 


76.2 


257 



(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


1.86- 


53316 


11.1 


2.87 


45602 


11.4 


3.09 


38796 


12.2 


3.46 


42199 


12.0 


2.49 


45148 


13.2 


1.99- 


76003 + 


13.8 



Table 19. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2007 "L" assignment series on a Baldwin silty clay 
soil at Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 




Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 




Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 








(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


13701 




60.0 


229 


2.17 


55358 + 


11.4 


Ho95-988 


13410 




54.3 


247 


2.71 


39930 


11.4 


HoCP96-540 


12795 




236 


2.58 


42426 


12.2 


L99-226 


16454 




69.9 


236 


3.26 


42879 


11.8 


L07-057 


11956 




52.1 


229 


2.05 


50820 


12.0 


L07-068 


12123 




52.6 


231 


1.78- 


59441 + 


13.2 + 



Table 20. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2007 "L" assignment series on a Commerce silt loam 
soil at Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


11567 


49.0- 


236 


2.12- 


46736 


11.9 


Ho95-988 


12727 


52.6- 

75.0 


244 

243 
244 


2.66- 

3.61 
3.19 


39703 

41745 
42653 


10.7- 


HoCP96-540 


18261 


12.1 


L99-226 


16576 


68.0 


10.8- 


L07-057 


14763 


63.5 


233 


2.56- 


50366 


13.0 


L07-068 


13248 


56.6- 


234 


2.11- 


53769 


14.1 + 



49 



Table 21. Infield and nursery third-stubble means of the 2004 "HoCP" assignment series across 2 
locations (Blackberry and Newton Farms) in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


6247 


25.9 


243 


1.28- 


31086 


11.6 


Ho95-988 


7378 


32.2 
39.8 


228 


1.76 


28004 


11.6 


HoCP96-540 


9027 


231 


1.91 


32515 


11.2 


L97-128 


8644 


35.8 


240 


1.88 


28261 


12.8 


HoCP04-838 


9258 


38.5 


243 


1.83 


35756 


13.3 



Table 22. Infield and nursery second-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series across 
5 locations ( Blackberry, Sugarland Acres, Newton, Westfield, and J. Fredericks Farms) 
in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


6855 


37.8 


179 


1.42 


53180 + 


10.9 


HoCP96-540 


6163 


29.8 


191 


1.85 


31581 


11.6 


L97-128 


9073 


40.3 


220 + 


1.96 


40898 + 


12.8 + 


L99-226 


7816 


40.2 


190 


2.12 


37752 


11.1 


HoCP05-902 


8249 


35.9 


225 + 


1.46 


48763 + 


10.1- 


HoCP05-961 


8423 


35.4 


228 + 


1.71 


40414 


12.4 



Table 23. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2007 "L" assignment series across 3 locations ( 
Newton, Westfield, and J. Fredericks Farms) in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


LCP85-384 


12368 


52.8 


234 


Ho95-988 


14123 


57.3 


247 


HoCP96-540 


15515 


63.1 


246 


L99-226 


17140 


70.4 


243 


L07-057 


13387 


57.3 


234 


L07-068 


14948 


61.8 


240 



(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


2.05- 


51803 + 


11.5 


2.74 


41745 


11.2- 


3.09 


40989 




3.30 


42577 


11.6 


2.36- 


48778 + 


12.7 


1.96- 


63071 + 


13.7 + 



50 



Table 24. Infield first-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series across 2 locations 
(Blackberry and U.S.D.A.-Ardoyne Farms) in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


7778 


33.6 


236 


1.83 


25668 


12.3 


Ho95-988 


9527 


39.2 


245 


2.06 


27469 


12.2 


HoCP96-540 


7548 


32.8 


233 


2.06 


24823 


11.4 


L99-226 


8524 


35.3 


244 


2.39 


21894 


11.2 


HoCP05-902 


9279 


35.2 


266 


1.73 


26655 


11.1 


HoCP05-961 


9497 


37.8 


251 


1.86 


25996 


12.7 + 



Table 25. Nursery plantcane means of the 2008 "L" assignment series across 3 locations (St. 
Gabriel, Iberia, and U.S.D.A.- Ardoyne Farms) in 2009. 





Sugar 


Cane 


Sugar 


Stalk 


Stalk 




Variety 


per Acre 


Yield 


Per Ton 


Weight 


Number 


Fiber 






(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 

■ 214 ■ 
230 + 


(lbs) 
3.01 


(stalks/A) 
29947 


(%) 


HoCP96-540 


9812 

11627 


45.6 
49.9 


10.6 


L99-226 


3.15 


31914 


11.1 


L01-283 


13356 


55.8 


238 + 


2.84 


39098 + 


11.6 + 


L0 1-299 


12914 


58.1 


221 


2.89 


40029 + 


11.0 


L08-075 


10678 


46.2 


227 


2.43- 


36981 + 


11.9 + 


L08-077 


9836 


44.6 


219 


2.59 


34334 


11.5 


L08-086 


9292 


38.8 


238 + 


2.79 


27527 


10.6 


L08-088 


9813 


42.3 


231 + 


2.72 


31006 


12.2 + 


L08-090 


11748 


52.5 


222 


3.10 


33577 


9.7 


L08-092 


11355 


49.3 


228 + 


2.70 


36149 


12.1 + 


L08-093 


9232 


41.1 


223 


2.01- 


40535 + 


10.8 



Table 26. Nursery second-stubble means of the 2005 "HoCP" assignment series across 3 
locations (Blackberry, Westfield, and Cecilia Farms) in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


LCP85-384 


6855 


37.8 


179 


1.42 
1.85 
1.96 


53180 + 
31581 
40898 + 


10.9 


HoCP96-540 


6163 


29.8 


191 


11.6 


L97-128 


9073 


40.3 


220 + 


12.8 + 


L99-226 


7816 


40.2 


190 


2.12 


37752 


11.0 


HoCP05-902 


8249 


35.9 


225 + 


1.46 


48763 + 


10.0- 


HoCP05-961 


8423 


35.4 


228 + 


1.71 


40414 


12.4 



51 



Table 27. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2006 "HoCP" assignment series across 3 locations 
(Westfield, Newton, J. Fredericks Farms) in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


LCP85-384 


7396 


38.5 


182 


Ho95-988 


9719 


47.8 


181 


HoCP96-540 


8325 


40.8 


191 


L99-226 


10898 


50.1 


193 


Ho06-537 


6376 


32.4 


186 


Ho06-563 


8893 


45.1 


182 



(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


1.62 


46524 


10.5 


1.82 


51062 


9.2- 


1.81 


43923 


10.7 


2.26 + 


42713 


10.3 


1.62 


39264 


10.7 


2.01 


44588 


13.5 + 



Table 28. Infield plantcane means of the 2006 "HoCP" and 2007 "L" assignment series across 2 
locations (Blackberry and U.S.D.A.-Ardoyne Farms) in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar 
per Acre 



Cane 
Yield 



Sugar 
Per Ton 



Stalk 
Weight 



Stalk 
Number 



Fiber 







(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


(%) 


HoCP96-540 


8578 


37.4 


229 


2.95 


19065 


11.1 


L99-226 


12072 


48.8 


250 


3.03 


24977 


10.7 


L01-283 


9574 


38.9 


246 


2.13- 


28016 


11.1 


Ho06-530 


11327 


52.7 


216 


2.63 


24790 


11.8 


Ho06-537 


11222 


45.6 


243 


2.53- 


25135 


10.1 


Ho06-563 


10409 


46.1 


226 


2.94 


25647 


14.1 + 


L07-057 


11479 


50.5 


230 


2.22- 


24007 


12.3 


L07-068 


10956 


47.2 


235 


1.96- 


28090 


13.8 + 



52 



2009 LOUISIANA "HoCP" and "Ho" NURSERY AND INFIELD VARIETY TRIALS 

E. O. Dufrene, M. J. Duet, T. L. Tew, and W. H. White 

USDA-ARS, Sugarcane Research Unit (SRU) 

Houma, Louisiana 



Three years after selecting in single-stools in the seedling stage, scientists in the SRU's 
sugarcane breeding program assign "HoCP" or "Ho" numbers to varieties advanced for further 
testing. These newly assigned varieties are planted in replicated nursery trials at the SRU's 
Ardoyne Farm in Schriever and the LSU AgCenter's Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette and 
Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel. The year after assignment, varieties advanced for further 
testing are replanted in nursery trials located on three commercial sugarcane farms in 
Paincourtville, Cecilia, and Bunkie, LA, each representing a different region of the sugarcane 
belt. Two years after assignment, active varieties are replanted in three infield tests (Ardoyne 
Farm and two additional commercial farms at Vacherie and Youngsville, LA). In addition, two 
years after assignment, varieties are introduced to primary stations and outfield locations for joint 
testing by the SRU, LSU AgCenter, and the American Sugar Cane League. 

The SRU's nursery test plots were planted during the year of assignment in a randomized 
complete block design with two replications. Plots are sixteen-feet long by six feet (one row) 
wide with a four-foot alleyway between plots. A minimum of three commercial varieties were 
planted in each test for comparison purposes. In addition to experimental commercial varieties, 
clones from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program were included in nursery 
trials. Yield data collected on RSB clones give breeders needed agronomic information to assist 
in deciding what crosses should be made with these borer-resistant clones. The year after 
assignment, varieties from the SRU'S program, combined with varieties from the LSU program, 
were planted in nurseries on commercial farms. Plot length in these tests was increased to 20 
feet. 

Nursery test plots were rated for agronomic traits in the spring and summer.. Stalk 
counts of mature, millable stalks were made in late July or August. A ten-stalk sample was 
hand-cut from each plot during the harvest season. Samples from USDA nurseries were taken to 
the Juice and Milling Quality Laboratory at the USDA Ardoyne Farm, where they were weighed 
to determine stalk weight and processed for sucrose analysis. Brix and pol values were used to 
estimate the yield of theoretical recoverable sugar (TRS) per ton of cane. Estimated yields of 
cane and sugar per acre, and number of stalks per acre were calculated based on results from 
juice analyses, mature millable stalk counts, and mean stalk weight. Varieties with acceptable 
yields (both cane tonnage and sugar per ton) and disease and insect resistance were advanced for 
further testing. 

Infield variety tests were planted at three locations (Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, 
Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, and Sugarland Acres in Youngsville) two years after assignment. 
Evaluations on commercial farms are conducted cooperatively with the LSU AgCenter 
sugarcane variety personnel. Infield tests were planted in a randomized complete block design 
with two replications, and include a minimum of four of the following commercial varieties 
(LCP 85-384, Ho 95-988, HoCP 96-540, L 97-128, L 99-226, HoCP 00-950, or L 01-283) used 
as checks. Plot size in infield tests are two 70-inch wide rows by twenty-four feet long. A 

53 



10-stalk sample was hand-cut from each plot just prior to harvesting and sent to the lab at the 
Ardoyne Farm, where they were weighed and processed by the pre-breaker/press for sucrose and 
fiber analysis. Brix and pol values were then used to estimate the yield of theoretical recoverable 
sugar (TRS) per ton of cane. Plots were weighed with a tractor pulled weigh- wagon equipped 
with electronic load cells mounted in the axles and hitch. The weight of harvested cane in each 
plot, stalk weights and sucrose analysis were used to estimate sugar per acre, tons of cane per 
acre, sugar per ton of cane, and number of stalks per acre. 

Table 1 lists planting and harvest dates of USD A infield and nursery evaluations. Results 
of infield and-nursery trials can be found in Tables 2 to 18. Statistical analyses were conducted 
for each test and for each series using PROC MIXED procedures in SAS (version 9.1). For 
purposes of comparison, HoCP 96-540 is highlighted in each table. Yield values which are 
significantly higher or lower (P=0.05) than values for HoCP 96-540 are noted with a '+' or '-', 
respectively. 



Table 1 . 2009 Planting and harvest dates of "HoCP" nursery & infield tests. 





Location 17 


Soil Texture 2/ 


Test type 


Planting Date 




Harvest Dates 




Series 


2007 


2008 


2009 


2004 


AFH 


Sc 


Infield 


10/05/06 


11/14 


11/10 


11/09 


2004 


BLK 


Csl 


Infield 


8/16/06 


11/28 


10/31 


11/03 


2005 


AFH 


Sc 


Infield 


9/21/07 




11/12 


11/09 


2005 


BLK 


Csl 


Infield 


8/17/07 




12/03 


11/03 


2005 


SUG 


Cosl 


Infield 


9/10/07 




12/12 


11/18 


2006 


AFL 


Csl 


Nursery 


10/25/06 


11/19 


12/04 


10/29 


2006 


IRS 


Bsc 


Nursery 


11/01/06 


11/20 


12/09 


11/04 


2006 


STG 


Sc 


Nursery 


11/14/06 


„ 3/ 


12/05 


11/16 


2006 


AFH 


Sc 


Infield 


10/03/08 






11/09 


2006 


BLK 


Csl 


Infield 


9/24/08 






12/16 


2007 


AFL 


Csl 


Nursery 


10/16/07 




12/05 


3/ 


2007 


IRS 


Bsc 


Nursery 


10/15/07 




12/09 


11/04 


2007 


STG 


Sc 


Nursery 


10/12/07 




12/05 


11/16 


2007 


AFH 


Sc 


Infield 


8/27/09 








2007 


BLK 


Csl 


Infield 


8/10/09 








2007 


SUG 


Cosl 


Infield 


8/26/09 








2008 


AFL 


Csl 


Nursery 


10/31/08 






12/11 


2008 


IRS 


Bsc 


Nursery 


10/29/08 






11/13 


2008 


STG 


Sc 


Nursery 


10/30/08 






11/24 


2009 


AFL 


Csl 


Nursery 


10/22/09 








2009 


STG 


Sc 


Nursery 


11/06/09 









17 AFH = Ardoyne Farm heavy soil, AFL = Ardoyne Farm Light soil in Schriever, BLK = 
Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, IRS = Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette, STG = St. Gabriel 
Research Station in St. Gabriel, SUG = Sugarland Acres in Youngsville. 

21 Bsc = Baldwin silty clay, Cosl = Coteau silt loam, Csl = Commerce silt loam, Sc - Sharkey clay 

3/ 



Not harvested. 



54 



Table 2. Infield second-stubble means of the 2004 "HoCP" assignment series on a Sharkey 
clay soil at the Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar/ 
acre 



Tons/ 
acre 



Sugar/ 
ton 



Weight/ 
stalk 



Stalks/ 
acre 



Fiber 



(lbs.) 



(tons) 



(lbs.) 



(lbs.) 



(no.) 



HoCP 96-540 


8496 

7810 


32.5 

31.3 


261 

248 


1.69 

1.61 


38575 


12.2 


LCP 85-384 


39275 


11.3 - 


L 97-128 


7543 


28.1 


270 


1.64 


34174 


13.0 


L 99-226 


6907 


27.0 


259 


1.78 


29875 


11.4 


HoCP 04-838 


8054 


31.1 


260 


1.62 


39079 


13.0 



Table 3. Infield second-stubble means of the 2004 "HoCP" assignment series over three 

locations (Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, and Sugarland 
Acres in Youngsville, Louisiana) in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar/ 
acre 



Tons/ 
acre 



Sugar/ 
ton 



Weight/ 
stalk 



Stalks/ 
acre 



Fiber 



(lbs.) 



(tons) 



(lbs.) 



(lbs.) 



(no.) 



HoCP 96-540 


10392 


41.6 


251 


1.92 


27630 


12.5 


LCP 85-384 


8195 


32.1 - 


255 


1.51 - 


29023 


12.1 


L 97-128 


7886 


32.2 - 


248 


1.86 


23504 


13.3 


L 99-226 


9042 


33.3 - 


272 


2.03 


23722 


11.7 


HoCP 04-838 


9320 


37.4 


252 


1.72 


27962 


14.0 + 



Table 4. Infield first-stubble means of the 2005 "Ho" and "HoCP" assignment series on a 
Sharkey clay soil at the Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar/ 
acre 



Tons/ 
acre 



Sugar/ 
ton 



Weight/ 
stalk 



Stalks/ 
acre 



Fiber 



(lbs.) 



(tons) 



(lbs.) 



(lbs.) 



(no.) 



(%) 



HoCP 96-540 


8667 

9553 


39.9 


217 




1.86 


42972 


11.3 




LCP 85-384 


39.2 


244 


+ 


2.22 


35273 - 


12.3 


+ 


Ho 95-988 


9753 


42.1 


232 


+ 


1.92 


43914 


11.5 




L 99-226 


7291 


31.9 


228 




2.09 


30441 - 


11.0 




HoCP 05-902 


8891 


33.6 


265 


+ 


1.70 


39543 


9.8 


- 


Ho 05-961 


8591 


36.8 


234 


+ 


1.80 


40855 


13.0 


+ 



55 



Table 5. Infield first-stubble means of the 2005 "Ho" and "HoCP" assignment series over 
three locations (Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, and 
Sugarland Acres in Youngsville, Louisiana) in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 




Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 


Fiber 




(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


(%) 


HoCP 96-540 


7548 


32.8 


233 


2.06 


24823 


11.4 


LCP 85-384 


7745 


33.0 


237 


1.82 


23284 


12.3 


Ho 95-988 


9527 


39.2 


245 


2.06 


27469 


12.2 


L 99-226 


8524 


35.3 


244 


2.39 


21894 


11.2 


HoCP 05-902 


9316 


35.6 


266 


1.73 


26655 


11.1 


Ho 05-961 


9497 


37.8 


251 


1.86 


25996 


12.7 + 



Table 6. Nursery second- stubble means of the 2006 "Ho" assignment series on a Commerce 
silt loam soil at the Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 


Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 




(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


HoCP 96-540 


15598 

10039 


63.6 

39.3 


246 

MlMHBnHWMNmMlHR'''' - 

256 


2.50 


50820 


LCP 85-384 


1.79 


44694 


Ho 95-988 


15144 


59.4 


254 


2.71 


43787 


L 97-128 


12869 


47.8 


268 


2.58 


36981 


Ho 06-537 


13116 


55.2 


230 


2.28 


47871 


Ho 06-563 


14371 


60.8 


236 


2.32 


51728 


Ho 06-9609 4/ 


9632 


53.5 


180 - 


2.61 


41064 


Ho 06-9610 4/ 


9413 


43.4 


219 


2.23 


38569 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



Table 7. Nursery second-stubble means of the 2006 "Ho" assignment series on a Baldwin silty 
clay soil at the Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 


Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 




(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


HoCP 96-540 


10843 


45.4 


239 


2.02 


44921 


LCP 85-384 


10233 


41.6 


247 


1.69 


48098 


Ho 95-988 


10039 


36.2 


277 + 


1.78 


41064 


L 97-128 


12381 


49.1 


253 + 


2.25 


43787 


Ho 06-537 


9328 


35.8 


262 + 


1.58 


45375 


Ho 06-563 


10646 


42.0 


252 


1.82 


45375 


Ho 06-9609 4/ 


5215 


28.8 


181 - 


1.57 


36981 


Ho 06-9610 4/ 


7763 


32.4 


240 


1.78 


36527 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



56 



Table 8. Nursery second-stubble means of the 2006 "Ho" assignment series on a Sharkey clay 
soil at the Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 


Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 




(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


HoCP 96-540 


13036 


56.0 


232 


2.35 


47644 


LCP 85-384 


6777 


29.0 


235 


1.75 - 


33124 


Ho 95-988 


11087 


45.9 


242 


1.92 - 


47871 


L 97-128 


7970 


31.8 


249 


2.07 


31082 


Ho 06-537 


10346 


41.0 


251 


1.91 - 


42199 


Ho 06-563 


9328 


41.1 


227 


1.66 - 


48778 


Ho 06-9609 4/ 


6732 


39.8 


169 - 


1.48 - 


53769 


Ho 06-9610 4/ 


4869 


22.9 


214 


1.07 - 


41745 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



Table 9. Nursery second-stubble means of the 2006 "HoCP" assignment series across 

locations (Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette, and 
Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel) in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 


Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 




(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


HoCP 96-540 


13159 


55.0 


239 


2.29 


47795 


LCP 85-384 


9016 - 


36.6 - 


246 


1.74 


41972 


Ho 95-988 


12090 


47.2 


257 + 


2.14 


44241 


L 97-128 


11073 


42.9 


257 + 


2.30 


37283 


Ho 06-537 


10930 


44.0 


247 


1.92 


45148 


Ho 06-563 


11448 


47.9 


238 


1.93 


48627 


Ho 06-9609 4/ 


7193 - 


40.7 - 


176 - 


1.89 


43938 


Ho 06-9610 4/ 


7348 - 


32.9 - 


224 


1.69 


38947 



47 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



Table 10. Infield plant-cane means of the 2006 "Ho" assignment series on a Sharkey clay soil 
at Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar/ 
acre 



Tons/ 
acre 



Sugar/ 
ton 



Weight/ 
stalk 



Stalks/ 
acre 



Fiber 



(lbs.) 



(tons) 



(lbs.) 



(lbs.) 



(no.) 



(%) 



HoCP 96-540 


6441 




30.8 




213 


3.10 


19905 


10.8 


L 99-226 


11730 


+ 


51.8 


+ 


229 


3.08 


33618 


10.6 


L 01-283 


8134 




34.8 




234 


2.04 - 


34592 


11.2 


Ho 06-537 


8632 




37.4 




230 


2.45 - 


30758 


9.5 


Ho 06-563 


9235 


+ 


44.7 


+ 


208 


2.96 


30460 


14.7 + 



57 



Table 11. Infield plant-cane means of the 2006 "Ho" assignment series over two locations 
(Ardoyne Farm in Schriever and Blackberry Farms in Vacherie, Louisiana) in 
2009. 



Variety 



Sugar/ 
acre 



Tons/ 
acre 



Sugar/ 
ton 



Weight/ 
stalk 



Stalks/ 
acre 



Fiber 



(lbs.) 



HoCP 96-540 


8578 


L 99-226 


12072 


L 01-283 


9574 


Ho 06-537 


11222 


Ho 06-563 


10409 



(tons) 

37.5 
48.8 
38.9 
45.6 
46.1 



(lbs.) 

229 

250 
246 
243 
226 



(lbs.) 



(no.) 



2.95 


19065 


3.03 


24977 


2.13 - 


28016 


2.53 - 


25135 


2.94 


25647 



(%) 

11.1 

10.7 
11.1 
10.1 
14.1 + 



Table 12. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2007 "Ho" assignment series on a Baldwin silty 
clay soil at the Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette, Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 


Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 


HoCP 96-540 


(lbs.) 
12931 


(tons) 
55.0 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


236 


2.39 


46283 


LCP 85-384 


12188 


48.6 


250 


1.78 


54223 


L 97-128 


15815 


61.5 


258 + 


2.63 


46736 


L 99-226 


14096 


52.8 


266 + 


2.86 


36981 


Ho 07-604 


16158 


63.3 


256 


2.33 


54450 


Ho 07-612 


12077 


56.2 


219 


2.42 


46056 


Ho 07-613 


15217 


59.7 


254 


2.91 


41064 


Ho 07-617 


18846 + 


70.2 


269 + 


2.28 


61710 + 


Ho 06-9607 4/ 


11485 


46.2 


249 


2.00 


46509 


Ho 06-9608 4/ 


10804 


64.8 


168 - 


2.00 


65567 + 


Ho 06-9609 4/ 


8746 


49.6 


175 - 


1.77 


55584 


Ho 06-9610 4/ 


8067 


37.2 


215 - 


1.59 - 


45829 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



58 



Table 13. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2007 "Ho" assignment series on a 
soil at the Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel, Louisiana in 2009. 


Sharkey clay 


Sugar/ Tons/ Sugar/ Weight/ 
Variety acre acre ton stalk 


Stalks/ 
acre 


(lbs.) (tons) (lbs.) (lbs.) 


(no.) 



HoCP 96-540 


13750 

10328 


58.2 


236 


2.56 


45375 


LCP 85-384 


48.2 


214 


2.09 


46509 


L 97-128 


8276 - 


33.3 - 


248 


2.33 


28813 


L 99-226 


10702 


45.9 


234 


2.75 


33578 


Ho 07-604 


12533 


50.9 


246 


2.04 - 


49913 


Ho 07-612 


8255 - 


37.1 - 


221 


1.87 - 


39703 


Ho 07-613 


13531 


53.7 


252 


2.51 


43333 


Ho 07-617 


9797 


39.9 - 


245 


1.69 - 


47190 


Ho 06-9607 4/ 


7795 - 


32.3 - 


240 


1.97 - 


32897 


Ho 06-9608 4/ 


7171 - 


41.0 


175 - 


1.78 - 


46283 


Ho 06-9609 4/ 


6563 - 


38.5 - 


169 - 


1.84 - 


41745 


Ho 06-9610 4/ 


3465 - 


17.5 - 


184 - 


1.16 - 


27906 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



Table 14. Nursery first-stubble means of the 2007 "Ho" assignment series across locations 

(Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette, and Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel) in 
2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 


Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 




(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


HoCP 96-540 


13341 


56.6 


236 


2.47 


45829 


LCP 85-384 


11258 


48.4 


232 


1.94 - 


50366 


L 97-128 


12045 


47.4 


253 


2.48 


37775 


L 99-226 


12399 


49.4 


250 


2.80 


35279 


Ho 07-604 


14345 


57.1 


251 


2.19 


52181 


Ho 07-612 


10166 


46.6 


220 


2.14 


42879 


Ho 07-613 


14374 


56.7 


253 


2.71 


42199 


Ho 07-617 


14322 


55.0 


257 


1.99 - 


54450 


Ho 06-9607 4/ 


9640 


39.2 


244 


1.98 - 


39703 


Ho 06-9608 4/ 


8987 - 


52.9 


171 - 


1.89 - 


55925 


Ho 06-9609 4/ 


7655 - 


44.0 


172 - 


1.80 - 


48665 


Ho 06-9610 4/ 


5766 - 


27.3 


199 - 


1.37 - 


36867 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



59 



Table 15. Nursery plantcane means of the SRU's 2008 "Ho", "HoCP", and "HoL" assignment 
series on a Commerce silt loam soil at the Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Louisiana in 
2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 




Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 






(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 




HoCP 96-540 


14706 

13453 


56.9 


258 


2.87 


39703 




L 99-226 


59.4 


227 


3.21 


37661 




L 01-283 


14086 


48.7 


289 


2.14 - 


45602 




HoCP 08-700 


16286 


56.2 


290 


2.56 


44014 




HoCP 08-701 


15985 


65.1 


248 


3.10 


41972 




Ho 08-706 


17864 


75.5 + 


237 


3.11 


48778 




Ho 08-709 


15663 


58.3 


270 


2.23 


52181 


+ 


Ho 08-710 


12759 


49.9 


258 


2.46 


40611 




Ho 08-711 


20467 + 


73.6 + 


278 


3.41 


43106 




Ho 08-716 


13367 


53.5 


248 


3.24 


32897 




Ho 08-717 


14133 


51.7 


273 


2.01 - 


51501 


+ 


HoL 08-718 


17056 


65.8 


260 


2.70 


48778 




Ho 08-719 


12146 


43.5 


280 


2.10 - 


42426 




HoL 08-720 


17911 


64.7 


278 


2.22 


58761 


+ 


HoL 08-722 


14089 


51.8 


270 


2.21 


45829 




HoL 08-723 


19136 


70.1 


274 


3.05 


46056 




HoCP 08-724 


19496 


71.5 


273 


2.68 


53769 


+ 


HoCP 08-726 


17519 


63.2 


277 


3.40 


37208 




Ho 08-728 


16982 


59.7 


285 


2.19 


54450 


+ 


HoCP 08-729 


17802 


71.6 


249 


2.83 


50593 


+ 


Ho 08-730 


17777 


74.0 + 


240 


2.82 


52635 


+ 


Ho 08-9616 4/ 


10661 


41.0 


261 


2.14 - 


38342 




Ho 08-9617 4/ 


12964 


52.0 


250 


2.27 


46509 




Ho 08-9618 4/ 


14748 


55.7 


266 


2.53 


44014 





4T 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



60 



Table 16. Nursery plantcane means of the SRU's 2008 "Ho", "HoCP", and "HoL" assignment 
series on a Baldwin silty clay soil at the Iberia Research Station in Jeanerette, 
Louisiana in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 




Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 






(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 




HoCP 96-540 


7477 


29.4 


256 


2.59 


22688 




L 99-226 


9438 


37.2 


254 


2.58 


28813 




L 01-283 


5294 


18.7 


282 


1.81 - 


21099 




HoCP 08-700 


11831 + 


44.5 


+ 266 


2.39 


37661 


+ 


HoCP 08-701 


9451 


45.2 


+ 209 - 


2.75 


32897 


+ 


Ho 08-706 


10689 + 


41.1 


261 


2.43 


33804 


+ 


Ho 08-709 


12142 + 


46.1 


+ 264 


2.28 


40611 


+ 


Ho 08-710 


10150 


43.5 


+ 234 


2.42 


36073 


+ 


Ho 08-711 


10222 


42.5 


+ 241 


2.62 


32443 


+ 


Ho 08-716 


7640 


40.2 


190 - 


2.96 + 


27225 




Ho 08-717 


10374 


46.4 


+ 225 - 


2.09 - 


44468 


+ 


HoL 08-718 


8214 


43.7 


+ 189 - 


2.81 


31082 




Ho 08-719 


11810 + 


45.2 


+ 261 


2.36 


38342 


+ 


HoL 08-720 


10054 


38.7 


261 


1.93 - 


40157 


+ 


HoL 08-722 


8926 


38.2 


234 


2.29 


33351 


+ 


HoL 08-723 


9759 


37.3 


262 


2.38 


31309 




HoCP 08-724 


10514 + 


49.8 


+ 214 - 


2.20 - 


45148 


+ 


HoCP 08-726 


11582 + 


41.0 


283 


2.52 


32670 


+ 


Ho 08-728 


13662 + 


52.0 


+ 262 


2.47 


41518 


+ 


HoCP 08-729 


7824 


33.0 


237 


2.12 - 


31082 




Ho 08-9616 4/ 


8328 


33.5 


249 


2.03 - 


33124 


+ 


Ho 08-9617 4/ 


7900 


36.6 


216 - 


2.28 


32216 


+ 


Ho 08-9618 4/ 


8784 


36.1 


244 


2.33 


31082 




4/ Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program 









61 



Table 17. Nursery plantcane means of the SRU's 2008 "Ho", "HoCP", and "HoL" assignment 
series on a Sharkey clay soil at the Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel, Louisiana 
in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 


Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 




(lbs.) 


(tons) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 


HoCP 96-540 


12080 


50.7 


238 


3.19 


32216 


L 99-226 


17323 


60.5 


287 + 


3.80 


31989 


L 01-283 


9740 


38.1 


256 


2.97 


26091 


HoCP 08-700 


11386 


45.1 


253 


2.36 


38569 


HoCP 08-701 


11008 


51.7 


212 


2.94 


34939 


Ho 08-706 


11227 


49.8 


226 


2.45 


40611 


Ho 08-709 


14640 


62.7 


234 


2.45 


51274 + 


Ho 08-710 


10327 


44.1 


230 


2.35 - 


36527 


Ho 08-711 


15206 


70.4 


217 


3.50 


41518 


Ho 08-716 


7876 


45.8 


170 - 


3.69 


24956 


Ho 08-717 


11761 


55.8 


211 


2.14 - 


52181 + 


HoL 08-718 


9184 


45.7 


201 


2.42 


38342 


Ho 08-719 


13989 


57.2 


239 


2.26 - 


50139 + 


HoL 08-720 


16052 


63.3 


253 


2.15 - 


58988 + 


HoL 08-722 


8165 


39.0 


210 


2.41 


32216 


HoL 08-723 


13357 


57.4 


233 


2.52 


44921 


HoCP 08-724 


11362 


57.2 


198 


3.10 


36981 


HoCP 08-726 


11291 


46.9 


241 


2.83 


33124 


Ho 08-728 


11635 


47.7 


244 


2.27 - 


42199 


HoCP 08-729 


10933 


43.9 


249 


2.63 


33578 


Ho 08-9616 4/ 


8376 


37.8 


223 


1.96 - 


40157 


Ho 08-9617 4/ 


8920 


47.9 


186 - 


2.23 - 


43106 


Ho 08-9618 4/ 


8761 


45.4 


184 - 


2.67 


34031 



Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) program. 



62 



Table 18. Nursery plantcane means of the SRU's 2008 "Ho", "HoCP", and "HoL" assignment 
series across locations (Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, Iberia Research Station in 
Jeanerette, and Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel) in 2009. 





Sugar/ 


Tons/ 


Sugar/ 


Weight/ 


Stalks/ 




Variety 


acre 


acre 


ton 


stalk 


acre 






(lbs.) 
11421 


(tons) 
45.7 


(lbs.) 
251 


(lbs.) 


(no.) 




HoCP 96-540 


2.88 


31536 


: -;!l! 


L 99-226 


13405 


52.3 


256 


3.20 


32821 




L 01-283 


9707 


35.2 


276 


2.30 - 


30931 




HoCP 08-700 


13168 


48.6 


270 


2.43 - 


40081 


+ 


HoCP 08-701 


12148 


54.0 


223 


2.93 


36603 




Ho 08-706 


13260 


55.5 


241 


2.66 


41064 


+ 


Ho 08-709 


14148 


55.7 


256 


2.32 - 


48022 


+ 


Ho 08-710 


11079 


45.8 


240 


2.41 - 


37737 




Ho 08-711 


15299 + 


62.1 + 


245 


3.18 


39023 


+ 


Ho 08-716 


9628 


46.5 


203 - 


3.29 


28359 




Ho 08-717 


12089 


51.3 


236 


2.08 - 


49383 


+ 


HoL 08-718 


11485 


51.8 


216 - 


2.64 


39401 


+ 


Ho 08-719 


12648 


48.6 


260 


2.24 - 


43636 


+ 


HoL 08-720 


14672 + 


55.6 


264 


2.10 - 


52635 


+ 


HoL 08-722 


10393 


43.0 


238 


2.30 - 


37132 




HoL 08-723 


14084 


54.9 


256 


2.65 


40762 


+ 


HoCP 08-724 


13791 


59.5 + 


228 


2.66 


45299 


+ 


HoCP 08-726 


13464 


50.4 


267 


2.91 


34334 




Ho 08-728 


14093 


53.1 


264 


2.31 - 


46056 


+ 


HoCP 08-729 


12187 


49.5 


245 


2.53 


38418 




Ho 08-9616 4/ 


9122 


37.4 


244 


2.04 - 


37208 




Ho 08-9617 4/ 


9928 


45.5 


217 


2.26 - 


40611 


+ 


Ho 08-9618 4/ 


10764 


45.7 


231 


2.51 


36376 




4/ Varieties from the SRU'S Recurrent Selection for Borers (RSB) pre 


)gram. 







63 



2009 LOUISIANA SUGARCANE VARIETY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

OUTFIELD VARIETY TRIALS 

David Sexton and Kenneth Gravois 
Sugar Research Station 

Edwis Dufrene and Mike Duet 
USDA-ARS, Sugarcane Research Laboratory 

Windell Jackson, Herman Waguespack, Jr. and Nathan Blackwelder 
American Sugar Cane League 



The outfield variety trials are the final stage of testing experimental varieties for their 
potential commercial production in Louisiana. Results from these trials are used in both variety 
advancement and crossing decisions. The outfield variety trials are cooperatively conducted at 
12 commercial locations throughout the Louisiana sugarcane belt by the LSU AgCenter, the 
USDA-ARS, and the American Sugar Cane League. 

To be considered for release, an experimental variety must equal or exceed the 
performance of commercial varieties with regard to yield and harvestability across locations, 
crops, and years. Accurate varietal evaluation requires overall yield performance information in 
addition to performance under adverse harvest conditions. The objective of this report is to 
provide overall and specific location yield data by crop for the 2009 outfield tests. Included are 
multi-year yield analyses for appropriate test varieties. 

The experimental design used at each outfield location was a randomized complete block 
design with three replications per location. Test plots were two rows wide and 50 feet long with 
a 5 -foot alley between plots. All locations were harvested with a combine harvester and each plot 
was weighed with a weigh wagon fitted with load cells mounted on each axle and hitch. A 1 0- 
stalk, whole-stalk sample, not stripped of leaves, was taken from each plot and sent to the 
USDA-ARS sucrose laboratory. Samples were hand cut for all tests. The samples were 
weighed, milled, and the juice analyzed for Brix and pol. Pounds of theoretical recoverable 
sugar per ton of cane were reported. 

Cane yield for each plot was estimated by plot weight, less 14% to adjust for leaf-trash 
weight and 10% for harvester efficiency. Stalk number was calculated by dividing adjusted cane 
yield by stalk weight. Adjustments made to cane yield resulted in lower estimated stalk numbers 
than those achieved by growers. 

Interpreting one year of yield data can be misleading because varieties may differ in 
relative performance from year to year. Across location means can likewise be misleading since 
a variety, experimental or commercial, may not perform consistently at all locations. Multi-year 
and multi-location testing solves these problems by averaging the inconsistent performances. 

The most widely grown variety in Louisiana in 2009 was HoCP96-540, occupying 50% 
of the state's acreage. Accordingly for comparison, HoCP96-540 is used as the check variety in 
all comparisons and is highlighted in the tables. To adjust for missing data, the SAS analysis 

64 



calculated least square means (v 9.2, Proc Mixed). Mean separation used least square mean 
probability differences (P=0.05). Varieties that are significantly higher or lower than HoCP96- 
540 are denoted by a plus (+) or minus (-), respectively, next to the value for each trait. 

Six experimental varieties representing the 2007 assignment series were introduced to 
outfield locations for seed increase in 2009 (Table 1). Six experimental and six commercial 
varieties were planted at 1 1 outfield locations. Thirty -two tests were harvested in 2009 including 
eleven plantcane, eleven first-stubble, seven second-stubble, and three third-stubble crops (Table 
2). 

Variety yields are reported by crop and trait with overall means and individual location 
data in the same table and in summary tables by crop. A combined analysis of plantcane, first- 
stubble, second-stubble, and third-stubble crops averaged over several years is also provided. 

The Louisiana sugar industry was spared of tropical activity in 2009. However, the 
sugarcane crop lodged badly after heavy rainfall that began in September and lasted through the 
end of harvest, with only brief relief in mid-November. Harvest conditions were extremely 
muddy. All tests were harvested before the freezes of early January 2010. 

L03-371 was harvested in plantcane through second stubble crops in 2009 and will be 
considered for release in the spring of 2010. The experimental variety HoCP04-838 was sent 
from the primary seed increase stations to secondary increase stations. This variety could be 
released in 2011. 



Data were obtained through a cooperative effort of personnel from the LSU AgCenter, 
USDA-ARS, Sugarcane Research Laboratory, and the American Sugar Cane League in 
accordance to the provisions of the "Three-way Agreement of 2007." Outfield testing would not 
be possible without the full cooperation of the growers at each outfield location. 

65 





T3 
















CD 








« 








3 


-nI" 


CN CO l^ 




o 


o 


i—l 1— l r-H 




D 


NO 


*o^o\o 




■£ 


l> 


r^ r-i- r^- 




-^ 


o 


o o o 




O 


o 


o o o 




T3 


PC ffi PC DC 




a> 








o 








3 








-o 








o 








H 








-t— i 








C 








HH 








00 








(13 
















-4-J 








.2 
















"C 








cd 








> 
















cd 








-4-> 








C 








<D 








J 


r*> 


oo 


ON 


C 


in 


no 


o 
o 


a. 


i> 


t> 


CN 


* 


o 


o 


& 


W 


►J 


rJ 








T3 
















CD 




o 


co 


Ifl 




CO 


NO 


"3 




in 


in 


o 




no 


NO 


CD 




o 


O 


45 




Oh 


Ph 






u u 




o 


O 


T3 


.2 


DC X 


0) 


'■*-> 






-4— > 


cd 






d 


"C 






M 


cd 






"E 


> 




00 CN r^ 


03 


cd 




m o no 


CD 


C 


r-H 


OO ON ON 

^ in in 


" 1^ 


B 


r> 


o o o 


3 


"C 


CO 


Ph Ph Ph 


> 


a. 


co 


u u u 


13 

+-> 

c 
<d 


o 


o o o 


w 


J 


DC DC PC 








| 
















n 








d> 








&, 








CD 




co 


ON 






oo 


ON 


T3 
1 




<N 


CN 




, i 


, 1 






O 


o 


Id 


00 

.2 


hJ 


J 


o 






»H 


.2 
Cd 






d 


> 


o 


o 


o 




"* 


in 


U 


is 


m 


ON 






no 


no co © 


l-H 


<u 


ON 


cn co © 


Jh 


£ 


Oh 


CN CN Ph 


3 


g 


u 


on on y 


c« 


o 


o 


ON ON O 


H 


O 


DC 


JJS 



ON 

o 
o 



T3 

a> 
-I—' 
oo 

CD 

45 
oo 

a 
_o 
%-> 

cd 
o 

o 

13 
o 

-2 

00 
TO 

ooi 

1 

3. 



> 

x 

CN 



3 



00 




in .d 


CD 


200 
lanti 


Q 


Ph 




-t— > 




00 




ON 0) 


0) 


o > 

° a 

CN ,2 


Q 


PC 




00 




^o .5 


<u 


200 
lant 


td 
Q 


Ph 




-4-> 




00 




On cd 


<u 


O > 




CN ,3 


PC 




00 




t> .5 


<u 


© -3 


td 

Q 


CN iS 


Ph 




+-> 




00 




ON 1) 


<u 


2 > 


td 

Q 


° & 

CN i2 


X 




00 




oo .d 


<u 


200 
lant 


■a 

Q 


Ph 




+-> 




oo 




ON Oi 


<u 


O > 


td 

Q 


CN J3 


PC 




00 




ON d 


0) 


200 
lant: 


td 

Q 


Ph 




45 




00 








S-j 




a 




P* 




d 




o 








-i--: 




cd 




o 




o 




hJ 





in 


CN 


*o 


o 


ON 

o 


ON 

o 


ON 

o 


ON 

o 


* 


* 


^J- 


o 



o o 

ON O 

O r-H 



CN 
OO 

o 



o 



<u 



z 



O r^ 



CN CN 

ON ON 

o o 



m ■*? On vo 

r-H r-H O O 

ON ON ON O 

O O O -^ 



CN 
* ?N * * 



CN 



ON 

o 



in o cn 

* o rr C^ 

* -h ^ CN 



^O 


ON 

CN 


o 
cn 


o 

1 * 


CN 


oo 
o 


00 

o 


00 

o 


ON 

o 


o 


CN 
CN 


* 


CN 


oo 
o 


o 


o 


* 


^H 


o 



in cn 

O CN 

o o 



in o 

O r-H 



NO 
O 

ON 
O 



m 

CN 



inoocNr- lONf-or-- 

r^CN-^r-Hr^OCNCN 

OnOnOnOnOnOnOn On 

oooooooo 



r^ no m o 

CN O O r-H 



NO m On 
CN CN O 



NO 

o 



* ^^fNl^^HfNlCNlOr-HO 



£§§^223 



^§2 



ON ON 
O O 



on o o 2: 

O r^ ^H O 



ON 



o o o 



O ~, _Zh 4h 



«n 

o 


o 

CO 


CN 
CN 


CN 


in 

o 


CO 

o 


o 


ON 

o 


CO 
CN 


CN 


NO 

o 


- 


- 


CN 


r-H 


o 


CN 

r-H 


CN 


CN 


- 


r-H 




ON 


CO 


CO 

o 


CN 


o 


CN 

O 


o 


o 

CN 


CO 

o 


CN 


CN 

CN 


r-H 


oo 
o 


ON 

o 


oo 
o 


ON 

o 


ON 

o 


ON 

o 


OO 

o 


ON 

o 


O 

r-H 


ON 

o 



0) 

<L) 



0> 
CD 



& 


o 


CD 


o 
O 

CD 


1 


d 

o 

Ph 

i 

to 


5 


d 

1 


CD 

O 
43 


CD 
45 
O 


2 


1 

• r— 1 


cd 

r-} 




s 


o 


s 


<D 


+-> 


o 


-t-> 


o 


-l-> 


1/3 
< 


■f-> 


■*— > 


CD 


cd 


in 


Ph 


Xfl 


Ph 


CO 


CO 


CO 


H 


p-I 



.2 

CD 
43 



q d 



cd 



a cd 

cd C3 



< < < 



3 
o 
o 

CD 
CO 

d 
o 
PQ 



4^ 
o 



-h d 

^ 1 

co cd 



T3 
O 
O 

d 

CD 



CQ Pin. O 



1 

i 



J3 
o 

I— s 

CO y-< 



CD 
> 

CD 

r-1 



CD 

O 43 

^ & a 

s S d 





d 




d 

o 


.o 






cd 




td 

CD 


o 

o 




O 








00 




00 


3 




45 

-4— > 


r J3 
trl 




+H 






cd 


T3 




T3 


CD 

-4— > 




CD 


00 




■4— > 


CD 


o 


Oh 


cd 

45 


o 

CN 


&0 
CD 
-t— > 


-4— > 

00 

CD 


_g 


O 

2 


O 

2 


T3 
0> 
■*-> 
oo 

CD 

> 

Cd 


* 


* 
* 


PC 



© 
o 

CN 



M 1 
60. 



1 

o 

e 
o 
> 



C/5 



<U 

s- 



E 
o 
o 

> 

— 



o 

03 
— 

a 

60 

3 



(53 
O 

c 

Oh 

co 

03 

H 



>s 
> 

03 

X 



c 3 
o ° 

GO 



GO 



> 



+ + + + 



«n <N O m 

co co as cn 

■r- o — . 

as — • — . 



OS 
•<* 
00 



SO OS ON 
l~- CN SO 

^ O — -^ 



o co 

— < CN 
O — 



■H O co CN •<*• 

f»r»' co ^ ^ ro 

HH «n CN "<fr rj- 

n CN -* CN O 



CO SO SO 

os so r- 

— i OS — 



+ + + + 



*r> cn 

iOv o 



so so 



oo 
o 



© 



t» p- — * 



o 
oo 
co 






; Os; ^ 

SCO SO 

CN 00 

Os — 



o -sT r- 

o ■* 00 

T l*- ro 

co — ' -— ' 



OO 00 

OS CO 

OS CO 

CN — i 



oo oo 

LD LD 

*H 00 

rH rH 



LTI "vT <tf 

o r» (N 

«^ sO 00 

00 rH rH 



+ + + 



in oo 

00 rf 

<5f 00 

OS ^H 



m m so 

CO oo so 

00 OS 

o ^ 



cn 



r-~ oo so co 

r~ — < oo r- 

M SO ^ (N 

oo — o o 



;OV 00 

'©■ SO 

© CN 

00 : 00 



o 

in 
so so 

Os CN 



co rsi 

Os Os 

>n r~ 

os O 



o 
in 

Os 



Tt os r^ 

CN © CN 

,-h r~ ^h 

oo os oo 



oo 
co 
oo 



CU 

©■ 
X 



Os 
OS 

_1 



o 
o 

Oh 
U 

o 

X 



CO i— < 

oo t> 

CN CO 



co 

O 



O 
(X 

U 

o 
X 



«— <cosot~^co©cot~-oo 
■rr r~-m-^inoinr~so 

SO CN CN — SO 00 CN m CN 
O — CN co — — < — < — < CN 



«* 0\ ^ -< © a ^i- co m 

Os 0s0S00^-O\^^0s0s 
O I s N N n - CN "3- t-- 



00 sO LD 

"^ sO 00 

00 «3" LT> 

<3" r-H <H 



o 


oo 


o 


00 


(Ti 


cm 


«^- 


O 


«* 


00 


<tf 


r» 


r^ 


oo 


cm 


ID 


ai 


ai 


vO 


r-» 


ON 


r*» 


cm 


rH 


00 


as. 


00 


CJs 


o 


CM 


tH 


rH 


<H 


CM 


rv 


o 



t- CN 

CN CN 

Tf O0 



Tf oo oo 

oo m os 

l> in oo 

© as © 



(N 


■"* 


CN 


— 


<— i 


o 


oo 


m 


Os 


© 


ro 


r- 


CN 


in 


oo 


© 


so 


© 


CN 


^r 


ro 


Tf 


— 


a 


CN 


r- 


in 


Os 


Os 


' — ' 


© 


© 


© 


© 


Os 


Os 



oo rn 

r- os 

SO OS 

so oo 



CN 

© 

OS _H 
"A ^ 

O Os 



u 

o 



H 

3 

-a 
c 

C3 



o 
o 

> 

<u 

c 

03 

a> 
c 

03 
o 

+-< 



"3- 

I 



PQ 



c 3 

o ° 

PQ <u 

in 



a 

> 



+ + + + 

cNsqinsqo^sqincn 
sdincNr^odoscNroos 



cn © OS 

* m ci 



Bci CN -^ ^ oo fsj in l> 



oo — ^r 


CN 


OS 


OS © 00 


© 


so 



+ + 



Wtm ^t ^ cn os rn oo as oo 

^sd CO CO 00 ©' OS so © 



l||i>ooossq— ;corfas 
Wm-rf ~*f rf r|- ^ ^r cn <* 



h ^-h oo cn sq >* as os ^ 
HcN as in oo oo oo cn f"- 



mm ^ ^ "^ ^ ^°. °°. ^°. °^ 
wcN^Tj-'rHcN'sdo'rf 
«-^- in ^t tj- tj- in Tf ^t 



Wm ^r~;Ost^-;qc^q 
fflk >n'^odododcnOsOs 



ms oo ^ os r- -^ co so in 

■ sd CN SO OS CN SO OS* yi 

mm co-^coco'^-^tco'* 



© CO r-; CN oo 
in © as in r-" 

CO CO CO CO CO 



© a oo 
■* CN CO 



IgOs © 
»CO ^~ 



os in t-h so os os 
>n in p- - C~~ co co 

CO CO CO CO CO CO 



■H t~;CNoo©coini>r-^ 

M © so i> ©' so CN "-" -- i 

SI COCOCNCOCOCOCNCO 



© 




© 






00 CN 


"f 




in 






CO © 


in 




OS 






OO OS ^ 


so so 


ro 


© 


ro 


— 


^- in ^o 


as cn 


ro 


© 


00 


r- 


© © as 


Cl, cn 


CN 


Cu 


CN 


ro 


ft. D- ^ 


U rfs 


ris 


U 


Ji, 


ro 


O U © 


>s °^ 


Os 


o 


O 


O 


o o o 


3^" >— J 


J 


X 


-J 


-J 


III 



s£> 



On 
O 
O 
(N 

_g 

1/5 

c 
o 

o 

_o 

3 
O 

c 

> 



o 
ft 

X 

<u 

S- 

C 
o3 



0D< 



O 

o 

> 

C 

o 



& 

s- 
C3 

3 
00 

0> 
C 
03 
O 
+-» 

c 

03 



03 
H 



03 

3C 



c 3 
s ° 

GO 



'C 

03 
> 



oo— ■ on tj- r-~ >/n m no 
r»o\ooo\oooot^ooo 

MM(N(N(N(N(NC^M 



+ + + + 



+ + 



« O - 00 (N 
O — ON O OO 
m en <N m (N 



00 — o 
(N rn CO 



+ + + + + + 



«— i<Noir>r--ONOooO'-' 

OO00 — OnOnOO— ' o 



+ + 



+ + 



t>OOOOOONOO — O 



+ + + 



i-«ir>ONOONun>/-icnoo 
rj-ooNooo>/noor-~ooo 



■*t» lOTTO — t » » O 
!SO00NO\O\00- ON 
CN)riMroM(NMm(N 



v-ir--NooNONONoooir> 



ISO On O On On 00 C-- 00 
Nn(Nf<1N(N(NN(N 



+ + + + + + + 



i— « 00 ' — W t<l ^ 't ^ VI 
•<3*</~)OOONOONt-'-ONOO 



on t~- s o~- t> 

C3 <N C\l (N <N 



Tf <N m 
NO <N 00 



r— NO 0O — no no ~- ooo 
t^ONr-ONOooNr-oooo 



opsONNOON^d-ooooir) 
o©NONOt--r--N©u-> — oo 

<pNt<N<N(N<N(N(Nm(N 



o 




o 






00 (N 


rJ- 




IT) 






en o 


m 




ON 






OO On ^^ 


NO NO 


en 


o 


en 


,— i 


•4 «A ^o 


On (N 


m 


o 


00 


t— 


O O On 


0* (n 


(S 


Oh 


CM 


rn 


OhOhiA 


U oV 


ON 


u 


i 


i 

en 


U O © 


5 on 


ON 


o 


O 


o 


ooo 


n"" 1 l 


-J 


I 


J 


-J 


III 



ON 

o 
o 

CN 

_c 

c/i 
C 
O 

i 

o 

_o 

53 

IB 

-^ 

3 

o 

C 

> 

0> 



c 
<u 

.1 

<u 
CM 

0> 
i* 
3 

-a 
c 

03 



'53 

03 



NO 

1 



CO 



u- 



>noor~-<NmiocnooNO 

^ 9 ". t 1 "1 t "*. "1 
ri ri ri <n ri N H ri m' 



n* m <N NO (N 
On — — (NO 
IN W fN fN (N 



^ (S oo 

</n ~ (N 



«M VIVOOO -i N (N - 

oo — Nqi/no^cNNq^r 
cs m' cn cn ri cn cn cn cn 



"-<(N<NrN|in'3-oor^NO 
ON (N ir> r~; no r~; NO cn no 

CN cn CN CN (N CN CN CN CN 



V>NOOO-^-ON(N(Nm 

(Njh;Noo« »Tt tsr- 

CO rn<N(N(NCN(N(NCN 



On oo 
in o 



r- O NO — i CN On r- 
. On Tl; fNj r) (N (Nj ■* 
<n" '- rn — CN (N CN CN CN cn 



oof m — — no on oo m on 

^rj — — i rn — in "^ en "* 
IBcncNCNCNCNCNCNCN 



■^on — n ^f « vi q oo 
Bri ri cs N rs ri N f>i 



vo-Nor-o^Noo'sfON 

|H OONq(NC~-;r-;<N>0 

ci m ri ri fN> ri <n H r4 



r~- on io no c~- 

«r> On r~ On (N 



rl oo m 

■* — '- 1 



^ — 00 (N On ^ NO 
On On rn iO rn rNj rr 

S<^ ^' fN <N (N (N (N (N 



t~- 00 

00 o 



O: ^ — ■ — ■ on r- 

t~; ro NO ON 0O — % ; 

M: (N <N ^- — ' <N <N «-< (N 



— o 
oo — 





Igj; 




O 




00 (N 




t3* 




>o 




m o 




V^ 




On 




oo on _ 




NO NO 


m 


o cn 


^H 


4 >A NO 


.1 


ON Csl 
Oh (N 


m 


o oo 


t^ 


O O On 


ts 


CL, <N 


cn 


CU CU ^ 


s- 


U o\ 


i 

ON 


O ,i 


en 


U U o 


03 


O on 


On 


o O 


o 


o o o 


> 




hJ 


DC J 


-J 


III 



0< 

N£ 



Os 
O 
O 



9) 

-l-l 
3 
O 

c 



s- 
0) 
P. 

X 

CD 

H 

3 

eg 

■o 
c 
es 



b0; 

J! 



o 
o 

> 



£ 

3 
C 

IS 

c 

C3 

o 

c 

03 






r 

DC 



C 3 

I s 

PQ <D 

00 



u. 



'i 
> 



+ + + + + 



' r»osinooocN — 

i en os <— i^"'— i>r)0'— < 
CNmcnmmmmm 



s© m CN "t 00 

*-< (N in — < r-~ 

wTt m - in 

O so so so so 

CN cn m m m 



CN tj- CN 

ON -h (N 

(N 0O t 

m CN rn 



+ + + 



0000 — CN O CN CN CN O 

i— 'Ososmosmori-r-^ 

■ r- » -h u, a « o ts 

§|§ — -h t^ ts rt oo r- ^ 
H|tN rn rN m m m cn m 

+ + + 



*3- 


00 


r»- 


r-- 


rN 


CN 


Os 


o 


tt 


v> 


CM 


t 


m 


ON 


^T 


oo 


Os 


00 


SO 


o 


m 


r~ 


m 


r-- 


00 


o 


r- 


s© 


m 


t 


— ■ 


OS 


OS 


OS 


m 


o 



raits m m cn (N ts cn m 



+ + + 



+ + + 



©!Tr-H«oMTrm^ 

?Sf? enmosso — oosooo 
WrnrnOCN^J-inOsO 

<f> Mino^ooamin 
tStN-^tm-^-tNmmm 



I**. <N 00 SO O Tt (N SO OS 

Ovoo-<t — •— moom 
voosr-~-^-t~~oscnoooo 
*cii ooos'st-^i-inoom 
CNrNTl-rNmmmrNrN 



t-~ooomrNmrNoom 

00 ! Ot^>O(N<N000sr- 

PS'OOoop-oit^in'O 



+ 



B^o o os so c-- o so o 
ill — o cn os oo r-- o m 
itecN os m cn m os tj- o 
Os^rooincNos^tosr- 
Bits m m m CN cn CN CN 



*n(N(NOOsooosmr~- 
OsosooosocNmmoo 
OsO'st'SO — — trNrN 

M"* — oo vo — rf in m 
tStN^tNmmmmm 

+ 



<— < o m — os 

s© (N m — os 

V© Tf so Os so 

[SO ^ in ^t 

CN cn ^r rn m 



tsmo 
m os os 

m rf r-i 
so m so 
cn cn m 



+ 



+ + + + 



ft^ocooo-nino 
©•*oosossoinr-~r~s© 
SCS< oommoosoinmso 
Won >t o> o\ - o h 

CSrNTfrNCNCNmmrN 



inwh'joinh'Hir) 
©s r- ^t o — ^i- m o o 

m*hantoi-o 
«(NfN<NmmrncNrn 



o 
m 

, r . OS 

so so m O m 
Os rN m o oo 
£l, rN (N Cu <N 

y os os y — 

O os Os O o 



oo rN 
m o 

00 OS _ 

— i it >A vo 

r^ o O os 

m Oh Ch iA 

rn U O © 

© o o o 

hJ mm mm 2m 



c 
o 

■■§ 

o 

_o 

12 
tg 

3 

o 
c 
> 



c 

<L> 

I 

u 



i- 

eg 

0) 
s- 

o 

CS 
•— 
<u 

■~~ 
03 
oq 
3^ 



X) 

x> 
3 



3 



PQ 



e 3 

pa <u 

OS 



C^ 



3H 

03 
> 



■ 


© !; 'i 








+ 


+ 






oo 

00 
Os 
SO 


OO OS Os 

r- r- t 

^r m m 

oo oo oo 


Os 

ts 

oo 

00 


in 

r» 

oo 


C^l 

Os 


oo 
in 
in 

Os 


it 

CN 

O 


r-i 

OS 

oo 


CN 

m 

Os 

oo 




+ + 




+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 




+ 


■3- 

00 


Os *-m so 
rn rf oo 
r- oo *sf 

OS t~- o 


CN 

OS 


m 

SO 


rn 

o 

CN 

o 
+ 


00 

o 
oo 


OO 
Os 
in 

+ 


Os 

o 
oo 


oo 

Tl- 
Os 


SO 

oo 


>n cn ■* 
cn *n — 
r- o ^r 

Os O OS 


O 

SO 
O 


Os 
+ 


o 
o 
oo 

CM 

+ 


CN 

m 
o 


o 

SO 
CN 
CN 

+ 


oo 

CN 

OS 


SO 

m 

oo 

Os 


rN 

o 
rsi 

oo 


CN O — 

oo -y os 
o o o 
o OS OS 


OO 

m 

o 


<n 

m 


CN 
CN 


m 

so 
o 
o 


Os 

in 

o 


oo 
o 
oo 

Os 


Tf 
in 

m 

o 


wn 

00 

l> 


O M» 
00 OS OO 
CN O t-- 

<n m — 


o 
m 

OS 
O 


o 

Os 

o 


in 

CN 

m 


m 

oo 

CN 


CN 

m 
m 


oo 
m 
m 
m 


Os 
so 
o 
m 


(N 

m 


T}- SO «n 

o */-> oo 

' — " < !S' O 

OS OS OS 


SO 

OS 
OS 


o 

00 

in 

oo 


m 

o 

OS 


rn 
m 
•3- 
o 


o 

SO 

o 


o 
in 

OS 


o 
m 
m 

Os 


ts 

CN 

OS 
SO 


— OS Os 

SO Tj" — 

O O SO 

i>^Boo 


o 

00 


3: 

o 
r- 

so 




o 

00 


Os 
OS 

m 

Os 


<* 

SO 

in 
r- 


m 

o 

Os 

oo 


Os 

SO 


m so r^ 
Os «ri m 

m oo oo 
oo o« r- 


oo 

CN 

in 

00 


Os 

o 
o 

00 


00 


CN 

o 

00 
00 


CN 

m 

oo 

OS 


CN 

o 
oo 


m 


rn 
CN 

SO 


os en t 
CN •t so 

— V) — 

r^ r-~ so 


in 
in 

00 
00 


oo 

Os 
SO 

oo 


m 
so 
CN 

r- 


oo 
in 

00 


CN 

OO 

00 


o 
oo 


oo 
m 

CN 

OS 








+ 


+ 




+ 


+ 




m 

SO 


— Os oo 

— «o OS 
lO Tf so 

r^ so r- 


r- 

SO 


m 
in 

o 
oo 


rn 

OS 
oo 

00 




in 

•3- 

oo 


in 

oo 

r- 

oo 


o 

OS 


SO 

so 


in v) o 
t-~ r~- oo 
r-» so r- 

m^g«n 


CN 

o 


so 
Os 


in 

CN 

m 

SO 


CN 

m 
in 

so 




o 


OS 
00 

in 


CN 

SO 


SO : *—* t^ 
in O >n 
^r — i oo 
so r- in 


so 
m 
o 

SO 


Os 
O 

t> 


m 

SO 
SO 


so 
m 

00 

r-- 


in 

oo 

Os 
SO 


SO 
O 


m 

Os 
SO 


<3- 

oo 


o 

oo «« 

?o so 00 
Os os (N 

^ Pi T 
£ 3 ^ 






o 
in 

OS 








00 

m 

oo 


m 
i 

un 

00 

Du 
U 

-J 


SO 
CN 

oV 

OS 
-J 


m 
m 

CN 

OS 

Os 
-J 


o 

o 

D- 

U 

o 

X 


m 

oo 

CN 

O 

-J 


OS 

OS 

CN 

i 

O 
-J 


rn 
1 

rn 

o 

-J 


■4 

o 

CU 

U 

O 

X 



OS 



ON 
O 
O 
CN 



C 

_o 

o 

o 

22 

3 
O 

C 
(J 
> 

CD 



O 

•—, 
<D 

s 
a 

o 
o 

0) 

c 
"S 
-a 

c 

03 



(so; 






2 
c 

O 

3 



On 

X) 
cd 
H 



c 3 

CO <u 

<S1 



GO 



> 



S CNlH© -' n O -t CJ\ (N ^ 
CNcotococococococococo 



+ + 



0\COt-^NdoONCNONOO'<3 : 

CN co CN co co co co co ^t co co 



-h q vq vq i; >n oo ^ m q ^r 
o\ -*t ve> ro tj-" so o\ r^ co — ' t}-" 

CNcococococococo-Nt-coco 



•^ "* :**>; oo oo ir> ^r >o on — _ -^ 
odf^ro-H(NO\ | d'to6'?od 
fNcocococococococococo 



fN©vqinNOCNOOcocoI><0 



-- -- o\oo oo >q <n ■* 't q o\ 

1/Tsd--cN----o6od</-iNdrNcN 
CcNcorocococNCNcocococo 

o 



coNdoo*i/SoNi/"icNodr-^ONCN 
co co .co mnnmn^mt 



qqvjinninq^rnooio 
CNcorocNcococNcocococN 



r-H — ■Tj-o^Dir;r-oooor-~ON 
■*K»mc>dNh6»tn 

CN <N tell N(Nri(N(NMNn 



o in as no — co oo 
so od r~ — i od ^ — i 
CN <N CN co CN co co 



o\ vi w 
cn <-« co 

CO CO CO 



i^ oi H d ^J c> ^ Tf 

— M M M (N - CN CN 



ON On 
in CO 
(N CN 



o\fn«omoo»o^'jro^>q 

^■\O00M'(Nin(N0<)O\t^K 
CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN 



O o oo 

^ ^t m co 

oo oo V <=* °? 

<joONoscNCNcooooONr-o 

00 ul, ft, - CN CN CU CN CN co Oh 

cu S.Ori aV dV O - -1 co O 

jIEjjjIjjjI 



-o 

e 

03 



CM 



cM 

!- 

03 

3 
en 



tJ- 






o ° 
on 



£1 

> 



+ + 



+ + 



oommocNcor-OcocN-- 

inNo«nr-~00NOON00Nor-NO 

CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 



+ + 



ON- < in '-> so — co oo no on 

ON On J8S* OOOON — OOONOt-- 



+ + 



— NONOOoofNfNmmoor- 

OOOOf»-OOONOCNOsOOONOO 
fSfNCNCNcoCNcocNCNCNCN 



+ + 



+ + + + + 



O CN ;->— I NO m NO OO (N ^ 00 O 

on o mm oo — ONOONOooor- 

fN CO |^| CNCOCNCOCNCNCNCN 



i/->0006t---ON»/->OONNOONOO 
CN CN;€^;CN CN CN CO CN CN CN CN 



— ^rr~-NO(Noo«or-oo'^- 

^ oo a oo, oo - ocnonooonoo 

gM(NNNmMrn(N(NCN(N 
O 

in 
=2 + + + 



^■CNt'-^O*OfNr~M00 
OOOOtOOMN- < On On O 
f N4^_ (N (N'— CNCN — — CN 



+ + 



+ + 



NOin<OmcoCNOOCN— ' ONO 

co ■* -CV Nor-~moor--inNOin 

CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 



+ + 



OOCOTfONONinONTj-sOCNCN 

u-iNO\ONooNoo--'ONr--oor-~ 

CNCNCNCNCNCNCOCNCNCNCN 



+ 



+ 



NO "3" >—• CO CN CO O 

co no co ^ r~- co oo 

CN CN fN CN CN CN CN 



OO On OO 

^- r~ co 

CN CN CN 



CO CO SSfsS — CN in — NO | (N| t~» 

^© m Ms oo no in On no ! r~- •^ , 

CN CN BSli CN CN CN CN CN ! CN CN 



+ + + 



©r--r-cNiO'3-inr--ONCNcN 

uo'rt«^-NONor--ONr--coNoio 

CNCNfNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 



O 

oo oo "9 

CO op. so 00 
^ On ON <N 

oo iA Ou -7 
a- ct< U |i 

U O O os 

J X X -J 



o 
no 

ON 



no co o co on — -^r 

fN CO O OO On r~- O 

CN CN O, CN CN CO CU 

On On y — — CO y 

ON ON O o O O O 

J J X J J hJ X 



c 
r- 



On 
O 

o 

CN 



C 

o 

'■S 

o 

o 

13 

in 
+-> 

3 
O 

c 
> 

13 



> 



O 
o 

'a 

d 
3 



c 

CD 
J 

u 

CM 
X 

u 



.2? 
'53 

+-> 

1/3 
<U 

x> 

3 



Uu 






60! 



ccj 

CD 



C ^ 

5 ° 
CQ <u 



"C 

> 



NO — CN CN in OO OO OO On CN ON 
— < CN C$ (N N '-<-'-''- d -< 



oo oo ap-s tt >* o on o — r-; oo 

— — #4 CN CN CN — CN CN — < — 



ve m ^"oo — « vo r> ^- oo — 
•^ m ;«TV; mr--ooooONONCN — 



— CN CN CN CN 



-"- M (N 



mMNOOUNOMNl'tOOO't 
— i/"> 09 .NO On ^t CN O — ; "* in 
CN H <N CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN 



r- oo •*»* r-~ocoovo^rin'si- 
•ocs/t^inoqoocNr-'-; — incn 

— ' CN CN CN CN — '< CN — CN cn CN 



rf OO C*~S iOO\ONt-~-i/">NOi/")C-- 

^NqinsOinr^r^ooor^cn — 

C — I CN ol CN CN — <" — CN — CN CN 

o 



oo — > On" o cn no oo no — — oo 

— CN — * CN CN — « — ' — CN CN — - 



oi/ovor^moomNomiONO 
ONoqcNcNcn^or^r^oocNoo 

— •' — CN; CN CN — • — — " — CN — 



ON 


o 

ON 


r- 


CN 

O 


CN 


t~~; 


NO 


00 


1-; 


IT) 

o 


NO 
OO 






CN 


cn 


CN 










CN 




1 

On 


o 


ON 

<N 


rn 


NO 
NO 


00 

o 


CN 

00 




cn 

ON 


o 






CN 


cn 


cn" 


CN 

+ 


CN 








CN 




00 

cn 


ir> 

00 


in 


CN 

ON 


cn 




•3- 


m 

NO 




ON 


CN 

NO 



oo oo Oi oot^int~~ooNOoo^o 
r~;t^>— j ' On cn no cn cn n© © C--_ 

^ — : cn — ' cn — '< — — h ^' cn — ' 



oo oo *^ 

<^*> 00 \j£ oo NO 

lO °^ ?®e CN CN 

oo io A* 'T <N 

P^ <£ S^ t- ON 





O 




oo 




IT) 




C"> 




On 




oo 


m 


O 


m 


On -h -4 


cn 


o 


oo 


On I s * O 


CN 


cu 


CN 


cn cn cu 


i 

On 


U 


^ 


- ^ y 


ON 


o 


O 


o o o 


J 


X 


-J 


JJE 



T3 

C 



J 
CM 

o 



CN 



CQ 



- 5 

1 8 



u- 



> 



+ 



+ + + + 



+ 



r-~ m m oooirioor-u-iON-rf 
■* •<* : t*< r-oo^-NomONor-- 

OOONiOMntN (NTT ^OO 

m o on r-inNOmoooONin 

+ + + 



inoooooooor-~ir)m — cN>n 
cn oo ov <N ^ o io cn oo m m 

oo on f \©i oononooonocoo 
(NioONONirioo-^-ooooior- 
m m CN cn cn m m m m m m 



+ + 



o no >*•: o r- ON CN NO On (N m 

in oo cns r-in'^-'^-mmON-^ 

n N *w in -h oo ov « o h 

o on i-r ooino<Nr-irir--cN 

'^■CN<n'CNCN'^-'*f r i'5fCNcn 



+ + + + 



r- no 'OO'I CN — ONi/->iri©*0^ 
m oo t<-'; ONCNm^oiriinr-oo 
no no l\0j r-^r~r-~m>^Nom 
NO NOp*Stcn cn cn cn ^- no oo — 
CNCNCNCNCNmmmmcNm 



::::;■:: 



— O-3-OCN— 'mNOCNON^- 

cn oo ov: or-^-^iomr-^min 

OCNt>CNCN«n — - t OM^ 

—i m ?*p mr-~r--oor-~inON 



^cNomoo — — ioo — r- 
oo in tj» m — r-~ONCNino-^f 
m — t-- : onooo — Nor^cNO 

CN Tf ;*!* ^CNCNO-^-CNr-'— 
mCNCNCNCNmrnm^-CNrn 



cNr-«pmoNmcNON-^-oo(N 

oo r- '**<* r~ON-^ONONm-^oo 
ior~oom-^ONr~-(N<N<NON 
NO'st-ONmNOCNinNOioNONO 



CNCNCnJOO'^- — stm*\t o 
00 — OOONOONNOCNOO — 1 ^- 

r^ i/v«««« •^-r~~NoONr-NONo — 
o r~ :■&$. NONor-oor--(Nr~'— 
ro cn m CNcNmcNm'^-CNm 



+ 



no "3- <N; — NO^t~^^r--iom 

On i— i CN — ONm'^foomON'^- 
m io »-*: ooooom^-^-ONOO 
o oo ko* m r~ iri oo — ir> r-~ ^O 
mcN'tNCNCNcncNcncncNm 



+ 



CN t~- O©" 00 CN NO — 

O NO V> CN CN ON On 

in -^ ■* - in - o 

vo Tf <r oo - n vi 

rn cn CN (N cn m m 



ON ON 00 

oo in ^r 

O ^ ON 

Tt no r- 

m cn m 



■5j- m »r> Tt o —i r- ir> 

CNIOONOOOOOnOn 
CN — CN"3-NOi/~)©0 — 
001OVO— 'CNNO-^-O 
CN CN CN CN CN CN CN m 



r~- oo 

no in 

NO On 

CN CN 



r--in©m — mr^NOincNON 
— t^ooinONOO-^-ONCN^oi/") 
r~r~-oocNmiooooN — cn m 

OOONl>rnONCNCNOiONO — 

cncncncn — mm-^rmcNrn 





o 






O 








00 


Tl- 


^f 






IT) 








m 


oo 


oo •? 






ON 








oo 


m 


oo vo oo 


NO 


m 


o 


cn 


ON 


,— 1 


-4 


io 


ON ON CN 


CN 


m 


o 


oo 


ON 


r^ 


o 


OO 


iA 0- T 


CN 


CN 


0- 


CN 


CN 


m 


a. 


Oh 


^^ ^ 


1 

ON 


1 

On 


U 


,_!, 


1 


m 


U 


o 


O O on 


ON 


On 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


J 


1 1 1 ^ll,j- I 1 


J 


-J 


X 


J 


-J 


-J 


X 



Os 
o 
o 

(N 



05 

s 
o 

o 

o 

3 
O 

e 
> 



Xi 

bo: 



c 

e 
■— 

<D 

Q. 

X 

<L> 

a> 

c 
o 






o 

OS 
s- 

0> 
D- 

■— 

3 



X 
X) 

3 



T3 

C 

o 
o 



X) 

H 



o 
s 
bq 

03 



n - o oo ^ oo m 

cn cn so oo os c-- oo 

m en > 00" tj- r— i in 

so r- so- r- r- r- 



+ + + 



,-, ^H VO 

O « N 

so in o 

h M 0O O0 



On ^h *cn cn so Tf- os in <n r~- 

oo so *«■«: © cn cn cn so cn m 

r- so <M On so «n ^f oo in — < 

in r-- f- r-- r- r- os r- o© oo 



+ 



+ 



+ + + 



r- 


r» 


'St 


in 


in 


T— < 


Os 


o 


oo 


oo 


oo 


t> 



<n cn wfm Os cn cn 

cn in .*© ; in m -— i 

so -*f cn .""=)■ ^r •^t- 

>n so aggs r- so r- 



cnCNm^cnCN^OO^OO 

cNOsc^or-osoocN^in 

c-- r- oo ^h oo oo oo o os os 



+ 



+ + + 



^ so rn oo os 

0O OS 00 O OO 



^f CN 



in oo cn cn in 



rt cn — i so r- 



cn o 



-^ CN 
^r SO 
CN CN 



OS CN CN © 



^h tj- -\© f- O -3- SO >— i cn CN 

cn t-» ,.«n:. oo ^ so os r- m -^ 
cn cNIOsli m cn r- os cn oo o 
c^r^ininsosocnr^t^r- 



oo 

CN 



cn cn so cn r- os ^t 
so cn — ' cn cn cn Os 



Os oo : © ^ r-- cn o 

m in ,s© >n so >n so so so so 



+ + 



oo m CN 



"tf- in cn cn 



oo r- *n >n cn in in »— < 



OS ^ : 0Y SO t-> 
in so y> "n1" >n 



Os 



cn >n so cN 
r~- t~- r-- o 









o 






o 










«vf 




?*• 






in 










OO 


oo 


vv 






OS 










cn 


oo 


SO oo 


SO 


cn 


© 


cn 


OS 


1— 1 


0> 


in 


Os 


OS CN 


CN 


cn 


o 


oo 


Os 


r- 


oo 


in 


Pw. ^ 


CN 


CN 


PL, 


CN 


CN 


cn 


"C 


PL, 


OS 


y f^- 


Os 


Os 


u 


X, 


,_!, 


cn 


<n 


u 


O 


►s °^ 


OS 


OS 


o 


© 


o 


© 


> 


J 


X 




hJ 


J 


X 


J 


J 


J 



c 
,o 

<3 
O 

_o 

53 

ig 

■*-> 

3 
O 

3 
> 






2 

o 

-2 

X 
X 



X 
P<j 



o 
c 



.2 

> 



r-~«n«— i oo o « ^ h -h oo 

>n oo , Os" f~- t~~ c> so cn tt o 
cNCNcNcNCNcncNcncncn 



cncN.cnr~-;^cnooos — o 

cn < — i !:<5s Os r~- O cn O -^f ^^ 
cNcncNcNCNcncncncncn 



sq in v* rt o oo 
in so Os os r-^ -^ - 

CN CN CN CN CN cn 



+ + + 

cn cn oo 

so oo ^ 

m cn m 



^j- oo in 



H Tf OO o oo oo 



osossosoasmsor--ooTt 
cncn^-^-cn^cn^^T'd- 





3 


s- 


O 


3 




O 




a 


J-J 


D 




<y) 




3 




o 




DQ 





+ + 



SO CN 



cn ^^ ^^ 



O Os so oo 



^H SO 

"sf Os oo 



OcNcntNcncNcncNcn 



cNcnr^oocNO— ;oosqo 
^rcnOsdocN^r^t-incN 

CNCNCN — CNCN— 'CNCNCN 



osor^^osq^foocNin 
so cn . rt os so o — < cn ^r cn 

— CNCN^-CNCNCNCNCNCN 



Q^fNjt^^U-^fNIOSCNr^SO 

r—incnt^^sdcnodt-^sd 

CNCNCN-^CNCNCNCNCNCN 







o 








o 


Tj- 




*^- 








in 


oo 


oo 


m 








Os 


cn 


oo 


si 


oo 


so 


cn 


o 


in 


OS 


CJn ■ 


CN 


CN 


cn 


o 


oo 


in 


Cu 


< — i 


CN 


CN 


PL, 


a. 


Os 


Q 


i 


1 

Os 


1 

Os 


U 


U 


O 


o 


Os 


Os 


OS 


o 


J 


X 


X 


J 


J 


J 


X 



cn os ^ 
oo os r- 
cn cn cn 



o 






as 
o 
o 

CN 



3 

o 

C 
<L> 
> 
O 
C/5 



•— 

0) 
Q. 
X 

o 
o 

c 
o 






DC 



c 
o 

4) 



ofl 

3 



xj 



o 
o 

00 



u 

I 



-o 
o 
o 

a 

5 






3 



+ + + 



mNO-etr-r-^mooNOmNO 

(N(NMM(NtNM(N(N(N 



0'3-cNr--^-<oo©'3-^cN 

(NMM(NM(N(N(N(N(N 



+ : + 



On cn <n ^- o cn 

— i ^ t— < uo ^f CI 
CN CN CN CN CN CN 



+ + 



+ 



h- h i/i 
n- ^-h <s 

CN CN CN 



+ + 



+ 



— *ooN©(--ooNcncN 



m 

oo o t-- 

— CN *r< 



+ 



m tN 0\ ^ -^ 0\ ^ 
(N (N ^ (N (N ^ (N 



+ + + + + 



On oo in cn cn in <— i 

On >— < On CN ^ O ^ 

— <N m (N cn m cn co cn cn cn 



no oo: 

On — 0© 



On co t}- ^f cn oo in © oo on 
ON^-On(N — OOnOO — 
cNcncNcncncncNcncncn 



+ 



cn cn 
cn in 






+ + 



in OO 0O CN oo no o 
no m in oo no m no 



CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 



Nor-~cNcnr~-oo^fr--r~'3- 
r^ininr^NONO©Nor~-r-- 

CNCNCNCNCNCNcnCNCNCN 



oo oo *? 

r? oo vo o© no cn 
On ggfc; CN CN cn 



in 

OO i/| ft 

Oh £ U 

U o o 

-J -C >-E 



^h CN (N 

i i i 

r- on on 

On ON On 

J J J 



o 








<n 








ON 








o 


cn 


ON 


^_ 


o 


oo 


ON 


r- 


Cu 


CN 


CN 


cn 


U 




1 


i 

cn 


a 


O 


o 


O 


X 


J 


J 


*J 



c 
o 

■■§ 

o 

_o 

12 
<u 

*j 

3 
O 

c 
u 

> 

CD 

CO 



C 

-*— > 
c 

I 

CM 

<u 

<L> 
C 
O 
•— 



,o 



-o 
c 
o 
o 

93 

NO 



-O 

03 

H 



.3 

"o 
c 

or 



3 
> 





si 




+ 












no 


On OO 

+ 


oo 

ON 


(N 

+ 


ON 
NO 


o 


cn 


in 


OO 

oo 


NO 

in 


On O 

o t^ 


00 
ON 


<N 

<N 






oo 

NO 


On 


in 




<N 1-H 




(N 

+ 












oo 


O — 


On 

ON 


(N 

NO 


ON 




>n 

oo 


NO 

o 


CN 

cn 


"" ' 


CM CN 


~ 


(N 


^^ 




^^ 


CN 


CN 




»S3 
















in 


— NO 
On in 


in 

o 


in 


o 
in 


o 


cn 

NO 


cn 

NO 


cn 
o 

CN 


(N 
>n 


in O 
O cn 




NO 


cn 
CN 


in 

ON 


o 
oo 


ON 

oo 


O 




CN cn 

IP 


C4 


<N 


CN 








CN 


in 


NO CO 
On in 


NO 
O 


00 


O 

cn 


in 

NO 


ON 


oo 

00 


ON 
NO 


■ 

oo 
CN 


cn in 

A; 


cn 

NO 


ON 


■ 

cn 


m 




oo 
cn 


m 

NO 


ON 

r- 


NO ON 

O NO 


(N 


■<fr 

OO 




oo 
cn 




CN 

NO 


ON 

On 




















OO 


o 

oo "? 








o 
in 

ON 








■ 

>n 

oo 


OO \£J 

On q^ 


oo 

(N 


NO 
(N 


cn 
cn 

CN 


o 
o 

Oh 


cn 

oo 

CN 


ON 
On 
CN 


cn 


Oh 

U 


ON U 

o o 


ON 


On 

ON 


ON 
ON 


U 

o 

X 


O 


O 

-J 


cn 

o 



cn 



Os 
O 
O 



c/3 

C 

o 

o 

_o 

CO 



ofi; 



S3 

CO 

I 

•— 
CO 
P. 

>T 

<o 

co 
e 




o 

X> 

£ 

3 
C 

"3 

1/3 

3 

x> 

3 



T3 

C 

o 
o 

co 

C/3 



X> 

H 



CO 



■o 
o 
o 


t> 


OS 


>n 


© 


■* 


so 


CN 


m 


00 


OS 


m 


in 


o 


SO 


r~- 


en 


r- 


r~ 


o 


in 


^^ 


in 


CN 


^t- 


os 


en 


© 


v© 


o 


r^ 


so 


i—i 


© 


in 


-*t 


»-^ 


m 


r- 


CN 


■^r 


c 

<L> 


-* 


^r 


so 


■* 


st 


so 


^1- 


m 


SO 


'St 



a 



o 
e 
5q 



co 

CO 



+ 



insoenr--msomeneN^- 
sooscN.ooeNso -, 3-en©cn 
en CN en CN CM en en en ^ en 



Os in so in in 



oo so vv as 

oo t«o 

Os Os •"?}• O 



o 



o 
o 



in cn oo 



"3" Os O 00 i— i 



Os en 

-5t CN 

00 



(NCNenencNenenenen - ^- 



+ + 



CN 


Os 


C"l 


o 


oo 


SO 


en 


en 


so 




CN 


o 


OS 


CM 


en 


o 


oo 


Os 


SO 


SO 


en 


r- 


oo 


Os 


CN 


*-H 


O 


OO 


SO 


c-~ 


Os 


o 


CN 


Os 


f- 


en 



CN CN mm CN CN en 



en en en 



c + 
o 



+ + 



inoocNOC~-cNoor- 

OsOstNe<-iOssocNSO 



r-H OS 

Os so 



so Os Os -^r in CN oo O _ 
r- Os ■•;#%:■: Os <— i en os en CN 
encNCNcNCNencN-^-^en 



SO 


00 


r- 


SO 


CN 


so 


<* 


so 


-sT 


r- 


oo 


in 


m 


en 


o 


en 


"3- 


SO 


O 


SO 


oo 


so 


ox 


CN 


1 — 1 


in 


in 


Os 


O 


o 


r^ 


en 


c-~ 


SO 


1—1 


en 


so 


SO 


r- 


SO 



CN CN CN "- ' 



oosocNt^inenencN - ^--^ 



so oo in 
c — r— "it 

so so oo 



<* (N 



so os © ^r en 
oo r- o ^r os 
o ■* ^ oo oo 



cNCNCNCNCNencNenencN 



r» 


o 


*vt" 


Os 


CM 


^r 


CM 


en 


oo 


i— i 


Os 


"3- 


O 


i — i 


<tf 


CM 


Os 


rf 


"nT 


t> 


cn 


oo 


en 


i — i 


in 


CM 


o 


o 


in 


i — i 


^ 


^ 


oo 


o 


en 


o 


in 


en 


in 


r- 



cm cm CM cm cm en en en en cm 



o o 

OO oo ^ ©> 

cn oo \o oo so en O en Os ^ 

m °^ ;OA CN CM en O oo Os r- 

oo iA : tt ~ cn cn Oh cm cn en 

t-> £■:■& ^ ^ 3 E S S S 



Table 18. Third-stubble sugar per acre for nine commercial varieties at three outfield locations in 2009. 



Heavy 



Light. 



Variety 






Alma 


Bon Secour 


Lanaux 


Mean 












(tons/A) 






LCP85-384 




4219 - 


7613 




5514 


5782 


Ho95-988 






5067 - 


9098 




4580 - 


6248 


HoCP96-540 


I2ffJS : 


7095 


8049 




6766 


7303 


L97-128 






7020 


8358 




7218 


7532 


L99-226 






6699 


9425 


+ 


6571 


7565 


L99-233 






6780 


9653 


+ 


7136 


7865 


HoCPOO-950 






7263 


9735 


+ 


7757 


8252 


L0 1-283 






7302 


11154 


+ 


5721 


8059 


L0 1-299 






8591 


11792 


+ 


8769 


9717 + 



Table 19. Third-stubble cane yield for nine commercial varieties at three outfield locations in 2009. 


Heavy Light 




Variety Alma Bon Secour Lanaux 


Mean 



(tons/A) 



LCP85-384 

Ho95-988 

HoCP96-540 

L97-128 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HoCPOO-950 

L0 1-283 

L0 1-299 



20.4 - 

22.3 - 

32.4 

32.5 

27.7 

33.0 

30.8 

33.4 

38.6+ 



24.0 




29.7 


+ 


25.1 




26.9 




27.3 




31.3 


+ 


29.4 


+ 


33.8 


+ 


36.3 


+ 



17.6- 

15.9- 

23.6 

22.9 

19.8 

24.3 

24.1 

19.0 

26.3 



20.7- 
22.6 

27 
27.4 
24.9 
29.5 
28.1 
28.8 
33.7 + 



Table 20. Third-stubble sugar per ton for nine commercial varieties at two outfield locations in 2009. 

Heavy __ Light 

Variety Alma Bon Secour Lanaux 



Mean 



LCP85-384 

Ho95-988 

HoCP96-540 

L97-128 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HoCPOO-950 

L01-283 

L0 1-299 



206 

228 
219 

217 

241 + 

206 

235 

219 

222 



(tons/A) 



317 
306 
320 
311 
346 
308 
331 
330 
325 



+ 



314 + 


279 


290 


275 


287 


275 


315 + 


281 


332 + 


306 


292 


269 


322 + 


296 


303 


284 


332 + 


293 



75 



Table 2 1 .Third-stubble stalk weight for nine commercial varieties at three outfield locations in 2009. 

Heavy Light 

Variety Alma Bon Secour Lanaux 



Mean 



LCP85-384 

Ho95-988 

HoCP96-540 

L97-128 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HoCPOO-950 

L01-283 

L0 1-299 



1.64 - 

1.80 - 
2.47 

2.07 - 
2.49 

1.62 - 

1.80 - 

1.49 - 

1.91 - 



(tons/A) 



1.39 
1.80 

2.15 
2.26 
2.52 
1.76 
1.64 
1.74 
2.48 



1.44- 


1.49- 


1.54- 


1.71- 


2.12 


2.24 


1.91 


2.08 


1.93 


2.31 


1.54- 


1.64- 


1.68- 


1.71- 


1.75 


1.66- 


1.51- 


1.97- 



Table 22. Third-stubble stalk number for nine commercial varieties at three outfield locations in 2008. 



Variety 



Heavy 



.Light. 



Alma 



Bon Secour 



Lanaux 



Mean 



LCP85-384 

Ho95-988 

HoCP96~540 

L97-128 

L99-226 

L99-233 

HoCPOO-950 

L01-283 

L0 1-299 



24935 
24894 
26417 
31682 
22554 
40962 
34485 + 
45843 + 
41189 + 



(tons/A) 



34722 


+ 


33690 


+ 


23616 




23997 




21915 




35821 


+ 


38153 


+ 


39397 


+ 


29253 





24688 
21065 

22711 

24040 

20471 

32771 + 

28750 

21003 

35567 + 



28115 
26550 
24248 
26573 
21646 
36518 + 
33796 + 
35414 + 
35336 + 



Table 23. Forth Stubble means from one outfield location in 2009: Glenwood. 



Variety 



Sugar per Acre 



Cane Yield Sugar per Ton Stalk Weight 



Stalk Number 





(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


LCP85-384 


6612 


39.3 


169 


1.64 


47738 


HoCP9 1-555 


7988 + 


39.5 


202+ 


1.63 


48804 


Ho95-988 


8224 + 

5227 


38.7 
34.1 


213+ 


1.92 


40983 


HoCP96-540 


155 


1.74 


39054 


L97-128 


8322 + 


42.1+ 


197+ 


1.97 


44090 


L99-226 


9375 + 


40.2 


233+ 


2.37+ 


33950 


L99-233 


8216 + 


43.4+ 


190+ 


1.71 


52506 


HoCPOO-950 


9283 + 


39.9 


233+ 


1.96 


41209 


L0 1-283 


10429 + 


51.3+ 


204+ 


1.64 


63369+ 


L0 1-299 


9246 + 


51.4+ 


180 


1.86 


57647+ 



76 



Table 24. Plantcane 1 


neans from eleven outfield locations 


in 2009: Allains, Alma, Brunswick, Bon Secour, F. Martin, 


Glenwood 


Lanaux, Magnolia, 


Mary, R. Hebert and St. John. 






Variety 


Sugar per Acre 


Cane Yield 


Sugar per Ton 


Stalk Weight 


Stalk Number 


HoCP96-540 


(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


9735 


36.2 


270 
290+ 


2.65 
3.08+ 


27947 


L99-226 


10325 


35.6 


23370- 


L99-233 


11829+ 


42.3+ 


281+ 


2.17- 


39926+ 


HoCPOO-950 


11251+ 


37.6 


299+ 


2.42- 


31554+ 


L01-283 


10762+ 


38.0+ 


284+ 


2.23- 


34708+ 


L03-371 


11300+ 


39.2+ 


289+ 


2.52 


31608+ 


HoCP04-838 


11698+ 


42.6+ 


275 


2.43- 


35606+ 


HoCP05-902 


10104 


33.5- 


303+ 


2.18- 


30924+ 


Ho05-961 


11233+ 


39.3+ 


286+ 


2.56 


31416+ 



Table 25. First-stubble means from eleven outfield locations in 2009: Allains, Alma, Brunswick, Bon Secour, F. 
Martin, Glenwood, Lanaux, Magnolia, Mary, R. Hebert and St. John. 



Variety 



Sugar per Acre Cane Yield Sugar per Ton Stalk Weight 



Stalk Number 



(lbs/A) 



(tons/A) 



(lbs/ton) 



(lbs) 



(stalks/A) 



LCP85-384 


6988- 


27.2- 


258 


1.68- 


33047+ 


Ho95-988 


8478 


32.0 


265+ 


2.11- 
2.27 


30845 


HoCP96-540 


■■■8379 


32.8 


.... 255 


29273 


L97-128 


8349 


30.8 


270+ 


2.29 


27078 


L99-226 


8829 


31.4 


282+ 


2.52+ 


25280- 


L99-233 


8715 


33.1 


263 


1.84- 


36345+ 


HoCPOO-950 


9112+ 


30.7 


297+ 


1.84- 


33268+ 


L01-283 


9468+ 


33.9 


278+ 


1.81- 


38063+ 


L0 1-299 


9901+ 


37.9+ 


262 


1.92- 


39767+ 


L03-371 


8792 


32.4 


272+ 


2.20 


29669 


HoCP04-838 


8932 


34.2 


261 


1.97- 


35074+ 



Table 26. Second-stubble means from seven outfield locations in 2009: Allains, Alma, Bon Secour, Glenwood, 
Lanaux, R. Hebert and Magnolia. 



Variety 



Sugar per Acre Cane Yield 



Sugar per Ton Stalk Weight 



Stalk Number 



(lbs/A) 



(tons/A) 



(lbs/ton) 



(lbs) 



(stalks/A) 



LCP85-384 


6322 


25.7- 


251 


1.64 


31615 


Ho95-988 


7331 


28.5 


261 + 


1.97 


28996 


HoCP96-540 


6860 


29.1 


244 

274+ 


1.81 


33243 


L97-128 


7488 


27.8 


1.98 


27897- 


L99-226 


7194 


27.0 


271+ 


2.12+ 


26225- 


L99-233 


7578 


30.1 


258+ 


1.69 


36666 


HoCPOO-950 


7422 


26.8 


282+ 


1.73 


31045 


L0 1-283 


8601+ 


32.7+ 


267+ 


1.73 


38393+ 


L0 1-299 


8570+ 


34.1+ 


257+ 


1.75 


40009+ 


L03-371 


8026+ 


30.8 


266+ 


1.89 


33218 



77 



Table 27. Third-stubble means from three outfield locations in 2009: Alma, Bon Secour and Lanaux. 



Variety 


Sugar per Acre 


Cane Yield 


Sugar per Ton 


Stalk Weight 


Stalk Number 




(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


LCP85-384 


5782- 


20.7- 


279 


1.49- 


28115 


Ho95-988 


6248 
7303 

7532 


22.6 
27.0 

27.4 


275 


1.71- 


26550 


HoCP96-540 


275 


2.24 


24248 


L97-128 


281 


2.08 


26573 


L99-226 


7565 


24.9 


306+ 


2.31 


21646 


L99-233 


7856 


29.5 


269 


1.64- 


36518+ 


HoCPOO-950 


8252 


28.1 


296+ 


1.71- 


33796+ 


L01-283 


8059 


28.8 


284 


1.66- 


35414+ 


L0 1-299 


9717+ 


33.7+ 


293+ 


1.97 


35336+ 



Table 28. Combined plantcane means across outfield locations from 2005 to 2009. 



Variety 


Sugar per Acre 


Cane Yield 


Sugar per Ton 


Stalk Weight 


Stalk Number 


LCP85-384 


(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


7505- 


27.2- 


275 


1.91- 


28958 


HoCP95-988 


8875- 


32.6- 


272 


2.31- 


28426 


HoCP96-540 


9718 


35.2 
33.8- 


276 

271 


2.48 


29205 


L97-128 


9172- 


2.49 


27434- 


L99-226 


10173+ 


34.9 


291+ 


2.84+ 


25098- 


L99-233 


9929 


37.0+ 


268- 


1.98- 


38166+ 


HoCPOO-950 


10073 


34.1 


295+ 


2.21- 


31229+ 


L0 1-283 


9938 


35.3 


282+ 


2.16- 


33363+ 


L01-299 


9137- 


33.6- 


271 


2.19- 


31413+ 



Table 29. Combined first-stubble means across outfield locations from 2006 to 2009. 



Variety 


Sugar per Acre 


Cane Yield 


Sugar per Ton 


Stalk Weight 


Stalk Number 




(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


LCP85-384 


7207- 


26.3- 


274 


1.71- 


31446+ 


HoCP95-988 


8437 


30.5 


277 


2.14 


28825 


HoCP96-540 


8708 


31.8 


275 


■■HBH. 


29291 


L97-128 


8303 


29.8- 


279 


2.27 


26297- 


L99-226 


9417+ 


31.8 


296+ 


2.61+ 


24844- 


L99-233 


8663 


31.7 


274 


1.80- 


35893+ 


HoCPOO-950 


8891 


29.5- 


301+ 


1.94- 


30587 


L0 1-283 


9450+ 


32.9 


288+ 


1.88- 


35477+ 


L0 1-299 


9706+ 


35.8+ 


273 


1.90- 


37966+ 



78 



Table 30. Combined second-stubble means across outfield locations from 2007 to 2009. 



Variety 


Su 


gar per Acre 


Cane Yield 


Sugar per Ton 


Stalk Weight 


Stalk Number 






(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


LCP85-384 




6356- 


24.8- 


259 


1.55- 


32717 


HoCP95-988 


)$£-■■ ' ' -"'Abi:.: 


7318 
7001 


27.5 
28.0 


268+ 


1.90 


29188 


HoCP96-540 


253 


1.84 


31141 


L97-128 




7335 


27.2 


272+ 


1.97+ 


27678- 


L99-226 




7654+ 


27.6 


280+ 


2.23+ 


25290- 


L99-233 




7820+ 


30.7+ 


257 


1.65- 


38080+ 


HoCPOO-950 




7994+ 


27.9 


289+ 


1.78 


31799 


L01-283 




8329+ 


30.7+ 


274+ 


1.71- 


36348+ 


L0 1-299 




8574+ 


33.4+ 


261 + 


1.73 


39494+ 



Table 3 1 . Combined third-stubble means across outfield locations from 2008 to 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar per Acre Cane Yield 



Sugar per Ton Stalk Weight 



Stalk Number 



(lbs/A) 



(tons/A) 



(lbs/ton) 



(lbs) 



(stalks/A) 



LCP85-384 


5830 


20.6 


283 


1.43- 


29043 


HoCP95-988 


6318 


22.6 


278 


1.64- 


27912 


HoCP96-540 


6479 


23.5 


281 


2.01 


23471 


L97-128 


7499 


26.4 


288 


1.98 


27084 


L99-226 


7813+ 


25.6 


307+ 


2.21 


23322 


L99-233 


7993+ 


29.4+ 


274 


1.58- 


37756+ 


HoCPOO-950 


8157+ 


27.0 


304+ 


1.68- 


32754+ 


L01-283 


8313+ 


28.3+ 


295+ 


1.57- 


36901+ 


L0 1-299 


9466+ 


32.7+ 


292 


1.82 


37021+ 






Table 32. Combined plantcane means for L03-371 across outfield locations from 2007 to 2009. 



Variety 



Sugar per Acre Cane Yield 



Sugar per Ton Stalk Weight 



Stalk Number 



(lbs/A) 



(tons/A) 



(lbs/ton) 



(lbs) 



(stalks/A) 



LCP85-384 


7440- 


26.4- 


280 


1.98- 


27097 


HoCP95-988 
HoCP96-540 


8683- 
9712 


31.4- 

35 5 


275 

274 


2.33- 

2.61 

2.58 


26981 

... 

28015 


L97-128 


9561 


34.5 


277 


26826 


L99-226 


10062 


34.7 


290+ 


2.99+ 


23485- 


L99-233 


10233+ 


38.0+ 


269 


2.07- 


37677+ 


HoCPOO-950 


10352+ 


34.9 


297+ 


2.32- 


30386+ 


L01-283 


10213 


36.1 


283+ 


2.25- 


32775+ 


L0 1-299 


9487 


34.5 


274 


2.21- 


32729+ 


L03-371 


10357+ 


35.7 


290+ 


2.45- 


29608 



79 



Table 33. Combined first-stubble means for L03-371 across outfield locations from 2008 to 2009. 



Variety 


Sugar per Acre 


Cane Yield 


Sugar per Ton 


Stalk Weight 


Stalk Number 




(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


LCP85-384 


6639- 


24.8- 


270 


1.64- 


31018 


HoCP95-988 


7911 


29.0- 


274 


2.06- 


28608 


HoCP96-540 


PP97 


31.2 


nm 


2.17 


29190 


L97-128 


7964 


28.7- 


278+ 


2.21 


25933- 


L99-226 


8729 


30.1 


291+ 


2.53+ 


24243- 


L99-233 


8356 


30.9 


272 


1.77- 


35218+ 


HoCPOO-950 


8681 


28.9- 


301+ 


1.84- 


31428 


L0 1-283 


8934 


31.4 


286+ 


1.80- 


35327+ 


L0 1-299 


9599+ 


35.9+ 


271 


1.88- 


38401+ 


L03-371 


8596 


30.6 


283+ 


2.15 


28679 



Table 34. Combined 


plantcane means 


forHoCP04-838 


across outfield locations from 2008 to 2009. 




Variety 


Sugar per Acre 


Cane Yield 


Sugar per Ton 


Stalk Weight 


Stalk Number 




(lbs/A) 


(tons/A) 


(lbs/ton) 


(lbs) 


(stalks/A) 


LCP85-384 


7525- 


26.7- 


283 


2.03- 


26035 


HoCP95-988 


8125- 


29.8- 


272 


2.23- 


26522 


HoCP96-540 


9441 


34.1 


* 277 /; 


2.66 


26236 


L97-128 


9331 


33.6 


278 


2.63 


25680 


L99-226 


9829 


33.6 


292+ 


2.98+ 


22809- 


L99-233 


10391+ 


37.6+ 


276 


2.11- 


36391+ 


HoCPOO-950 


10120+ 


33.9 


299+ 


2.30- 


29788+ 


L01-283 


9893 


34.7 


286+ 


2.25- 


31480+ 


L03-371 


10370+ 


35.4 


293+ 


2.49- 


28683+ 


HoCP04-838 


10465+ 


37.7+ 


278 


2.35- 


32426+ 



80 



SUCROSE LABORATORY AT THE SUGAR RESEARCH STATION 

Gert Hawkins and Kenneth Gravois 
Sugar Research Station 



The Sugar Research Station sucrose laboratory processed 1953 samples during the 2009 
harvest season (Table 1). Standard laboratory procedures were used to analyze 597 samples that 
included 256 sugarcane samples, 221 sweet sorghum samples, and 120 energy cane samples. 
The juice was extracted via a three-roller mill. Procedures included the use of Octapol® for 
clarification, and Brix was measured by a refractometer and pol was measured by saccharimeter 
(Autopol 880). Sucrose percent and theoretical recoverable sugar (lbs/ton of cane) was 
calculated based on the Brix and pol values. The sucrose laboratory processed samples from 
August 2009 to January 2010. 

A total of 1,356 samples were analyzed using the Spectracane FT-NIR instrument. The 
sample was prepared using a Dedini shredder that was then fed into the Spectracane unit that 
uses NIR technology to analyze the sample for Brix, pol, fiber, moisture, purity, and theoretical 
recoverable sugar. Samples that were spectral outliers were automatically sent into a bin and 
reanalyzed using wet chemistry procedures. 

Table 1 . Number of sugarcane samples processed at the Sugar Research Station sucrose 
laboratory during the 2009 harvest season. 



Unit/Project Area 



Leader 



Number of Samples 



School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences 



Iberia Research Station 

Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology 

Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept 

Entomology Department 

LCES 

Sugar Research Station/Variety Development 



Contract Services 

Audubon Sugar Institute (Sweet Sorghum) 

Macon Ridge Research Station (Sweet Sorghum) 

LCES (Sweet Sorghum) 

Rice Research Station (Sweet Sorghum) 

Iberia Research Station (Sweet Sorghum) 

Southeast Research Station (Sweet Sorghum) 

TOTAL 



Brenda Tubana 


214 


Magdi Selim 


6 


Jim Wang 


32 


Sonny Viator 


45 


Jeff Hoy 


312 


Richard Bengston 


12 


Gene Reagan 


30 


Albert Orgeron 


156 


Line Trials 


394 


Increase 


123 


Nursery 


222 


Genetics 


6 


Energy Cane 


140 




40 


Misook Kim 


17 


Wink Alison 


60 


Jerry Whatley 


10 


Dustin Harrell 


24 


Howard Viator 


50 


Kun-Jun Han 


60 



1953 



81 



LAES SUGARCANE TISSUE CULTURE LABORATORY 

Q.J.Xie 1 , J.L Flynn 1 , and K.A.Gravois 2 
^ertis USA, LLC and 2 Sugar Research Station 



During the 2009-2010 production season, about 2 1 ,000sugarcane plantlets 
regenerated in the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Sugarcane Tissue Culture 
Laboratory, were turned over to Certis USA, LLC, Kleentek Div., for transplanting into 
the greenhouse at Houma. The number of plantlets transplanted for each cultivar are 
listed in Table one. 



Table 1. The number of tissue-culture-derived plantlets of different cultivars transplanted 

in the greenhouse. 

Cultivar Number of plantlets 

L99-233 1,296 

HoCP04-838 2,070 

HoCP96-540 2,974 

HoCP85-845 5,256 



HoCPOO-950 1,613 

L99-226 1,296 

L01-283 5,598 

Ho02-113 720 

TOTAL 20,822 



82 



THE 2009 LOUISIANA SUGARCANE VARIETY SURVEY 

Benjamin L. Legendre and Kenneth A. Gravois 
Audubon Sugar Institute and Sugar Research Station 



INTRODUCTION 

A sugarcane variety survey was conducted during the summer of 2009 by the 
county agents in the 23 sugarcane-growing parishes (counties) of Louisiana to determine 
the variety makeup and distribution across the industry in the state (Legendre and 
Gravois 2009). There were no parish survey reports from Acadia, Cameron or 
Evangeline Parishes; however, the total area planted to sugarcane in these three parishes 
was less than 2,000 acres according to USDA-FAS. The information presented in this 
survey was summarized from the 20 individual parish reports that were submitted. 
According to USDA-FSA, there were 420,887 total acres planted to sugarcane in 
Louisiana in 2009. There were 412,327 acres included in this survey or 98 percent of the 
acres reported by USDA-FAS. 

Agents in each sugarcane-producing parish collected acreage figures by variety 
and crop from growers in their respective parishes. Nine varieties, LCP 85-384, HoCP 
91-555, Ho 95-988, HoCP 96-540, L 97-128, L 99-226, L 99-233, HoCP 00-950 and L 
01-283, were listed along with "Others" in the survey. The category of others included, 
but was not limited to, small acreages of CP 70-321, HoCP 85-845, CP 89-2143 and the 
newly released variety, L 01-299. There was also a small acreage of L 03-371 on the 
secondary stations; this variety is eligible for commercial release in 2010. The crop was 
divided into four categories, which included plant-cane, first-stubble, second-stubble and 
third-stubble and older crops. Additional information regarding parish acreage was 
collected as needed from the local and state Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices. 

Total State and Regional Acreage. Actual area planted to sugarcane included in 
this survey for each parish, region and statewide is shown in Table 1 . Statewide, the area 
planted to sugarcane in 2009 was 420,887 acres (3,558 acres or approximately 1% more 
than reported in 2008) according to state USDA-FSA records (Willie Cooper, USDA- 
FAS, personal communications). There was a total of 412,327 acres included in the 
current survey. Sugarcane was grown by 495 producers (a decrease of 31 producers or 
4.1% when compared to the 2008 crop). Of the total area planted to sugarcane, 
approximately 93.5% or 385,526 acres was available for harvest while the remaining 
6.5% or 26,801 acres were used for seed cane purposes. 

Figure 1 shows the parishes where sugarcane is grown in the state. Total area 
planted to sugarcane for the three regions, Bayou Teche, River-Bayou Lafourche and 
Northern, and list of parishes by regions are also shown in Table 1 . The Bayou Teche 
region had the largest area reported with 178,262, an increase of 13,210 acres when 
compared to 2008. This represented approximately 43.2% of the planted area reported in 
the state (Table 3). The three parishes with the largest acreage of sugarcane in the Bayou 

83 



Teche region are Iberia (57,231 acres), St. Mary (40,039 acres) and Vermillion (32,253 
acres) (Table 1). The River-Bayou Lafourche region reported 163,271 acres (39.6% of 
the state's acreage), an increase of 4,298 acres when compared to the 2008 survey. The 
three parishes with the largest acreage of sugarcane in the River-Bayou Lafourche region 
are Assumption (41,228 acres), Iberville (35,633 acres) and Lafourche (28,263 
acres)(Table 1). The Northern region reported 70,794 acres (17.2% of the state's 
acreage), up 3,793 acres from what was reported in the 2008 survey. The three parishes 
with the largest acreage of sugarcane in the Northern region are Pointe Coupee (33,026 
acres), West Baton Rouge (14,147 acres) and Rapides (9,656 acres) (Table 1). 

The total area planted to sugarcane in Louisiana has remained relatively stable in 
recent years although there had been a steady decline from 2000 to 2007. At its peak in 
2000-2001, there were approximately 500,000 acres planted to sugarcane. Overall, the 
drop has been approximately 80,000 to 1 00,000 acres over the last 1 0-year period. The 
main reasons for this decline in area were the low return on investment due to low sugar 
prices (although a rally in sugar prices has taken place during the last six months but was 
not a contributing factor for the area planted to sugarcane in 2008), moderate to high 
grain prices that have enticed growers to switch commodities (especially in the Northern 
region) and urban encroachment (especially in the Teche region along the 1-49 corridor 
between Lafayette and Morgan City). 

Sugarcane Distribution by Variety and Crop. The estimated statewide sugarcane 
acreage in percent by variety and crop is shown in Table 2. The leading variety for 2009 
was HoCP 96-540 with 50% of the total area planted to this variety. HoCP 96-540 has 
retained this first place ranking for the last two years. This was only the second time 
since 1998 that a variety other than LCP 85-384 held the lead spot. L 97-128 was the 
second leading variety with 17% followed by L 99-126, LCP 85-384, L 99-233 and Ho 
95-988 with 17%, 6%, 6% and 5%, respectively. All other varieties in the survey had 
each 2% or less of the planted area for 2009. 

In 2009, there were 1 14,627 acres of plant-cane (27.8% of the total area) 
consisting of predominately four varieties, HoCP 96-540, L 99-226, L99-233 and L 97- 
128, representing 48%, 21%, 13% and 7%, respectively, of the plant-cane area (Table 2). 
In 2009, growers expanded two newer varieties, HoCP 00-950, released in the fall of 
2007, and L 01-283, released in the fall of 2008, to their maximum extent limited only by 
the amount of seed cane available for expansion; however, they still represented only 5% 
and 1%, respectively, of the plant-cane area grown in 2009. There was only a trace of 
LCP 85-384 grown as plantcane in 2009. There was a total of 1 3 1 ,532 acres or 3 1 .9% of 
the total area planted to sugarcane grown as the first-stubble crop in 2009. HoCP 96-540, 
L 97-128, L 99-226 and L 99-233 occupied 52%, 19%, 13% and 7%, respectively, of the 
first-stubble crop. LCP 85-384 occupied only 1% of the first-stubble crop. All other 
varieties occupied 5% or less of the first-stubble crop. 

There were 121,636 acres or 29.5% of the total area planted to sugarcane grown 
as second-year stubble in 2009. HoCP 96-540, L 97-128 and Ho 95-988 were the three 
leading varieties found in second-year stubble with 54%, 25% and 8%, respectively, of 
the total area. LCP 85-384 occupied only 6% of the second-stubble crop area. There 
were only 44,532 acres or 10.8% of the total area planted to sugarcane reported as third- 

84 



year stubble and older in 2009. This was a significant departure from past years when 
LCP 85-384 was the leading variety from plant-cane through third-year stubble and older. 
One of the characteristics of this variety was its excellent stubbling ability; however, in 
recent years the variety has not performed up to expectations because of common rust 
limiting production (Hoy 2005). However, the newer varieties do not have the same 
stubbling ability as did LCP 85-384. HoCP 96-540 occupied 39% of the third-stubble 
and older crop followed closely by LCP 85-384. This will undoubtedly be the last year in 
which LCP 85-384 occupies double digit levels for any crop year. 

The majority of the Louisiana sugarcane crop has been harvested by cane 
combines since 2000 when over 70% of the crop was planted to LCP 85-384, presumably 
to take advantage of the variety's superior yield potential. However, with the lower 
yields experienced since 2003, especially in the older stubble crops, many growers, 
especially in the Bayou Teche region, have switched back to the whole-stalk "soldier" 
system for harvesting their crop. This is mainly due to the lower costs of operating the 
whole-stalk system, especially in low yielding fields. Many of the newer varieties are 
better suited for harvest by the soldier system since they are mostly erect at harvest and 
less brittle. However, two of the newer varieties, L 99-226 and L 99-233, have a greater 
tendency to lodge or lay down which lends themselves for harvest by the combine 
system. 

Sugarcane Distribution by Region and Crop. With the prominence of LCP 85-384, 
there had been a trend to plant less cane each year and keep more acres in older stubble 
crops; however, because of the poor performance of LCP 85-384, especially in the older 
stubble crops, that trend changed in 2004 and continued into 2009 when more acres were 
replanted in all regions than had been reported in previous years (Table 3). In 2009, 
27.8% of the state's acreage was in the plant-cane crop while only 10.8% was in the 
third- and older stubble crops. However, these percentages would have been more 
dramatic had weather conditions been more favorable for planting cane in the summer of 
2008. Growers had to delay and, in some cases, suspend planting because of wet weather 
in August followed by extremely dry weather after Hurricane Gustav resulting in very 
poor stands of plantcane in the spring of 2009. Several thousand acres had to be 
ploughed out in the spring of 2009 because of insufficient stands of cane. As recently as 
2003, the acreage in second- and older stubble was over 50% of the total acreage; now it 
is only 40.3%. 

For the current survey, the Northern region, which has routinely kept older 
stubble, had only 9.0% in third- and older stubble in 2009 compared to 10.8% and 14.3% 
in 2008 and 2007, respectively (Table 3). The percentage in plantcane actually decreased 
in 2009 (27.8%o) when compared to 2008 (33.3%) because of the wet weather during the 
planting season in 2008 and a possible switch to other crops. Wet weather during 
planting was followed by extremely dry weather for an extended period of time that 
impacted spring population in 2009 resulting in many fields of plantcane having to be 
ploughed out. The River-Bayou Lafourche region tends to plant more cane each year 
than the other regions, with less of its area devoted to stubble crops; however, in 2009 
there was actually the lowest total of the three regions in plantcane (23.7%) due to the 
wet weather during the planting season in 2008. Again this period of wet weather was 
followed by extremely dry weather which resulted in poor stands in some plantcane fields 

85 



in the spring of 2009 that had to be ploughed out. At the same time, there was more area 
dedicated to third- and older stubble (13.1%) when compared to the other regions. The 
trend for less stubble and more plantcane was also evident for the Bayou Teche region; 
the amount of older stubble remained approximately the same in 2009 (9.5%) when 
compared to 2008 (9.7%). Although the area planted in 2008 was 31.3%, it would have 
been more had the weather not been so wet. 

Sugarcane Distribution by Variety and Crop for the Three Regions. HoCP 96-540 
was the leading variety in the plant, first-stubble and second-stubble crops for all regions 
in 2009; it was also the leading variety in the third- and older stubble crops in the Bayou 
Teche and Northern Regions; whereas, LCP 85-384 was still the leading variety in the 
River/Bayou Lafourche region (Tables 4, 5 and 6). Its dominance was less pronounced in 
the River/Bayou Lafourche region. HoCP 96-540 lead the way in planted acreage with 
52%, 40% and 52% of the plant-cane crop in the Bayou Teche, River-Bayou Lafourche 
and Northern regions, respectively. The percentages for LCP 85-384 in the plant-cane 
crop for the three regions dropped to less than 1% for all regions. There was also a 
significant planting of L 99-226 and L 99-233 in all regions with less area planted to L 
97-128. L 97-128 has lost favor to many growers because of its lower than expected yield 
of sugar per ton of cane and its susceptibility to sugarcane smut. The popularity of the 
older varieties, namely HoCP 85-845 and HoCP 91-555, as well as one of the newer 
varieties, Ho 95-988, continued to lose favor by growers in all regions. Growers also 
expanded the newer varieties, HoCP 00-950, L 01-283 and L 01-299 to the maximum 
extent of their limited seed cane supply. 

Variety Trends. For the fifth consecutive year the total acreage planted to LCP 85-384 
(released in 1993) decreased from the previous year (Table 7). LCP 85-384 reached its 
maximum utilization in 2004 when 91% of the Louisiana acreage was planted to this 
variety. In 2009, LCP 85-384 was grown on only 6% of the total acres planted to 
sugarcane. The one year change for LCP 85-384 between 2008 and 2009 was a negative 
16 percentage points. Prior to the release of LCP 85-384, CP 70-321 was the leading 
variety which peaked in 1995 with 49% of the planted area of the state. Only one other 
variety, CP 65-357, released in 1973, reached more than 70% of the total acreage in the 
state with a high of 71% in 1980. HoCP 96-540, released for commercial planting in 

2003, occupied 50% of the state's acreage in 2009, an increase of 6 percentage points 
from 2008. The acreage of Ho 95-988, released in 2004, and L 97-128, also released in 

2004, remained the same in 2009 when compared to 2008 while acreage of L 99-226 
(released in 2006), L 99-233 (released in 2006), HoCP 00-950 (released in 2007), 
increased 6, 4 and 1 percentage points, respectively. The two newest varieties, L 01-283 
(released in 2008) and L 01-299 (released in 2009), had less than 1% each of the total 
acreage planted to sugarcane in 2009. 

According to Dufrene et al. (2009), all newer varieties are generally superior to 
LCP 85-384 in yield of sugar per acre throughout the crop cycle. Ho 95-988 has good 
stubbling ability; HoCP 96-540 has excellent yield of cane and sugar per acre; and, L 97- 
128 has early, high sucrose content to go along with its early maturity classification. Ho 
95-988 is classified as resistant to mosaic and leaf scald and moderately susceptible to 
smut and susceptible to brown rust and the sugarcane borer. It was reported that Ho 95- 
988 had a high percentage of broken stalks following Hurricane Gustav in 2008. HoCP 

86 



96-540 is classified as resistant to smut and mosaic, moderately susceptible to rust and 
leaf scald and moderately susceptible to the sugarcane borer. However, more rust has 
been seen in HoCP 56-540 in recent years and its resistance may continue to break down 
as the area planted to the variety increases (as was the case with LCP 85-384). The yield 
of sugar per acre for HoCP 96-540 appears to diminish with older stubble crops and, for 
2008, its yield in sugar per acre was less than most varieties in the test for the third- 
stubble crop (Dufrene et al. 2009). L 97-128 is classified as resistant to mosaic, 
moderately resistant to leaf scald and rust, susceptible to smut and susceptible to the 
sugarcane borer. All three varieties are more erect than LCP 85-384; hence, losses 
associated with mechanical harvesting should be less when compared to LCP 85-384. 

Both L 99-226 and L 99-233 have superior yield of both cane and sugar per acre. 
Both varieties have adequate resistance to the major disease complexes with L 99-226 
exhibiting an added attribute of having some resistance to the sugarcane borer. Many 
producers have planted these two varieties to significant acreages for 2009. However, 
growers should be aware that these two varieties have poor stalk cold tolerance. HoCP 
00-950 is expected to gain favor with growers in the future because of its superior yields 
of both sugar per ton of cane and per acre. During the development phase, HoCP 00-950 
had the highest level of sugar per ton of cane and was considered as one of the earliest 
maturing varieties ever released for commercial planting in Louisiana. However, 
following the two hurricanes that occurred during the summer of 2008, it was noted that 
there was a large percentage of broken tops in HoCP 00-950. L 01-283 was released for 
commercial planting in 2008 with great expectations. It has superior yield of tons cane 
per acre and sugar per ton of cane and per acre. L 01-283 is early maturing and is 
generally erect and well suited to both whole-stalk and combine harvesting systems. It is 
generally resistant to all major diseases affecting sugarcane with the exception of stubble 
stunting disease and has exhibited resistance to the sugarcane borer. To date, clean seed 
companies have been generally unsuccessful in using tissue culture to micro-propagate L 
01-283 because it exhibits an unacceptable high level of naturally occurring variants (off- 
types) L 01-299 was released in 2009 for its excellent stubbling ability, especially in 
older stubble; however, growers should be aware that this variety was actually dropped 
from the variety development in 2008 because of its susceptibility to smut and its erratic 
stands in plantcane. However, because of its superior stubbling ability and erectness, the 
variety was reconsidered for commercial release. With the release of eight new varieties 
since 2003 and more promising experimental clones on the horizon, it is believed that the 
Louisiana sugarcane industry should have a more balanced mix of varieties. 

Concern Over the Dependence of a Single Variety (Monoculture). Occasionally, 
expectations outweigh potential risk considerations to the planting of a single variety 
(Tew 1987). Hoy (2005) reported that LCP 85-384 was susceptible to common brown 
rust, and this disease has had a significant negative impact on both cane and sugar yield 
in areas of severe rust infection. He reported that rust can be controlled by fungicides; 
however, the best control option at this point is to plant the new varieties which have 
shown a greater degree of resistance. However, one new variety, Ho 95-988, is now 
considered susceptible to brown rust and has not been widely adapted by the industry. 
Further, in 2007 and again in 2008 and 2009 there were many fields of HoCP 96-540 that 
showed symptoms of brown rust but the severity of infection was not considered serious. 
However, as the industry increases the planting of this variety, there might be an increase 

87 



in severity of rust infection. Again, the message is to diversify and not rely on one 
variety. During the 2007 crop year, a new disease, orange rust, was discovered in Florida 
but not in Louisiana. Although orange rust is not considered a serious disease to most 
sugarcane industries around the world, it has been responsible for the demise of several 
varieties in other countries. It appears that one of Florida's major varieties, CP 80-1743, 
is susceptible to this new disease and its future is questionable. Through a cooperative 
agreement with USDA-ARS Sugarcane Field Station, Canal Point, Florida, Louisiana 
varieties are currently being evaluated for their reaction to orange rust. 

Another disease was found in LCP 85-384 in recent years, sugarcane yellow leaf 
disease (Grisham et al. 2001); although it appears now that the variety is tolerant to this 
disease. However, it is entirely possible that this new virus is also taking its toll on yield 
of this and other varieties. 

In a continuing effort to lessen the dependence of the industry on one variety, the 
Louisiana variety development program has developed eight new high yielding varieties 
since 2003, namely, Ho 95-988, HoCP 96-540, L 97-128, L 99-226, L 99-233, HoCP 00- 
950, L 01-283 and L 01-299. However, from the most recent variety survey, many 
growers are concentrating on planting four of these varieties, HoCP 96-540, L99-226 and 
L 99-233 and to a lesser extent, L 97-128. It is too early to tell whether HoCP 00-950, L 
01-283 or L 01-299 will gain acceptance by the industry although many growers have 
expressed a desire to plant these new varieties. Hopefully, the industry learned a valuable 
lesson and will not succumb to the practice of planting only one or two varieties, even 
though they might appear to have superior yield performance when compared to other 
varieties. 

Monocultures were common to the Louisiana sugarcane industry prior to the 
introduction of interspecific hybrids in the 1 920s. However, the Louisiana sugarcane 
industry can no longer afford to rely upon a single variety today as it did with LCP 85- 
384; therefore, we want to emphasize the need to plant several varieties to help to spread 
the risk of crop failure for any one variety. 

Crop Summary for 2009. The 2009 sugarcane variety census showed that 
Louisiana producers continued to switch to the newer varieties, namely HoCP 96-540 
(50% of the planted area), L 97-128 (17%), L 99-226 (1 1%) and L 99-233 (6%) while 
dramatically decreasing the area planted to LCP 85-384 (91% in 2004 to only 6% in 2009 
(Legendre & Gravois, unpublished data), For the most part, growers were very satisfied 
with the performance of the newer varieties, especially HoCP 96-540, L 97-128 and 
HoCP 00-950. Although it was expected that cane tonnage would be disappointing in 
2009 because of the late planting of the crop in 2008 and the early summer drought, in 
reality, average cane tonnage exceeded all expectations. In fact, the 35.8-ton average 
yield per harvested acre was second only to the 37.0-ton average yield obtained in 1999. 
Undoubtedly, the dry harvest conditions of 2008 and the warmer than average winter 
helped to establish good stubble cane stands in the spring of 2009. 

Weather records showed that the average temperatures across the sugarcane belt 
were average to above average for every month of the year with the exception of 
November and December (Louisiana Office of State Climatology). On the other hand, 

88 



rainfall was below average for seven months and above average for five months. Rainfall 
during the period October through December when most of the crop is harvested was 
over 10 in. above normal which made for a very difficult harvest. Sugar yield at the 
beginning of the harvest was considerably lower than expected due to the excessive 
rainfall which increased extraneous matter, to include field soil (mud), in the harvested 
sugarcane. For every one percent increase in extraneous matter there is a corresponding 
loss of approximately three pounds of sugar per ton of cane. The situation only worsened 
in December when rainfall amounts throughout the sugarcane belt exceeded record 
levels. It was reported that one factory had to cease milling operations because of more 
than a foot of water inside the mill caused by more than 10 in of rainfall during a six-hour 
period. 

Although rainfall was mostly deficient from January through July, the cane 
responded to late summer and early fall rains to produce one of the best crops on record, 
tonnage-wise. For the most part, there was above normal rainfall during the harvest 
season that reduced the overall quality of harvested cane. With the above normal rainfall 
in October and the heavier than expected cane tonnage, the cane in many fields was 
lodged (recumbent). The late growth and lodged conditions lead to later maturity and 
lower sucrose content at the start of the harvest although the maturity of the crop 
improved during the harvest. The usage of the chemical ripener glyphosate was, 
undoubtedly reduced because of the lodged conditions of the crop; however, it was 
reported by the factories that cane treated with ripener was superior in yield of 
recoverable sugar per ton of cane than cane not treated with ripener. In many cases, 
producers that treated cane with ripener on clay (heavy) soils had to delay the harvest in 
those areas until later in the crop when drier conditions prevailed. The only window of 
drier weather generally occurred from early to mid November. 

Most of the 1 1 factories processed record cane tonnages during the 2009 harvest 
which meant that all operated into January 2010. From January 5 through January 14, 
most weather stations in south Louisiana reported night temperatures below freezing and 
on January 9 through January 1 2 the low temperatures recorded were 20°F or below at 
several reporting stations (Louisiana Office of State Climatology). Fortunately, most of 
the cane had been harvested by January 12. It was noted that freeze cracks occurred in 
most cane remaining in the field during this period which would normally mean that 
significant deterioration in cane quality would have occurred within one week following 
such a freeze. 

Because of the high cost of fertilizer in general, many producers used less 
nitrogen in 2009 than was used in past years although recommendations have stressed 
that maximum yields of sugar per ton of cane and per acre could be achieved with lower 
rates of nitrogen. Undoubtedly, the lower rates of nitrogen helped to improve the 
maturity of the crop even though cane continued to grow into October and ultimately 
increased the yield of recoverable sugar per ton of cane later in the harvest. Producers 
also continued to apply less phosphorus and potassium in 2009 due to the high costs. 
Research data have shown that little or no response in yield of cane or sugar per acre 
could be expected when used even though soil tests indicated that there was an 
insufficient level of these nutrients in their soils. 



89 



Although the pricing period is not completed for the 2009 crop, sugar prices have 
risen sharply in recent months with the average predicted value for raw sugar between 
$23 and $24/cwt. This is approximately $3/cwt more than paid for the 2008 crop. 
Molasses prices have remained high and should average about $120/short ton at 79.5 Brix 
or $0.701 8/gal (an increase of $0.023/gal or 4% when compared to the 2008 crop). 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We acknowledge the assistance of the county agents for soliciting the sugarcane 
variety information published in this survey. We also want to thank the sugarcane 
growers who took the time and effort to respond to the survey from their agents. We 
would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the various USDA-FSA offices in the 
sugarcane parishes for certified acreage figures. 

REFERENCES 

Grisham, M.P., Pan, Y.-B., Legendre, B.L., Godshall, M.A. and Eggleston, G. 2001. 
Effect of sugarcane yellow leaf virus on sugarcane yield and juice quality. Proc. Int. Soc. 
Sugar Cane Technol. 24:434-438. 

Hoy, J. 2005. Impact of Rust on LCP 85-384. Sugar Bull. 84(1):12-13. 

Legendre, B.L. and Gravois, K.A. 2009. The 2008 Louisiana sugarcane variety survey. 
Sugar Bull. 87(10)17-22. 

Dufrene, E.O., Duet, M. J., Blackwelder, N. P., Waguespack, H.L., Jackson, W.R., 
Sexton, D. R. and Gravois, K.A. 2009. A Report on the 2008 outfield variety tests. 
Sugar Bull. 87(10):23-26. 

Tew, T.L. 1987. New varieties. In: Don J. Heinz (Ed.): Sugarcane Improvements 
through Breeding. Developments in Crop Science 11, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 559-594. 



90 



1 9 

Table 1 . Total area planted to sugarcane in Louisiana by region and parish, 2009. ' 

Bayou Teche region River-Bayou Lafourche Northern region 

region 



Parish 



Acres Parish 



Acres 



Parish 



Acres 



Acadia 


NAR 


Ascension 


14,603 


Avoyelles 
Evangeline 


7,147 
NAR 


Calcasieu 


2,287 


Assumption 


41,228 


Pointe Coupee 


33,026 


Cameron 


NAR 










Iberia 


57,231 


Iberville 


35,633 


Rapides 


9,656 


Jeff Davis 


6,490 


Lafourche 


28,263 


St. Landry 


6,818 


Lafayette 


10,705 


St. Charles 


1,497 


West Baton 
Rouge 


14,147 


St. Martin 


29,257 


St. James 


23,891 






St. Mary 


40,039 


St. John 


8,560 






Vermilion 


32,253 


Terrebonne 


9,596 







Total 



178,262 Total 



163,271 Total 



70,794 



Total all regions: 412,327 



Acreage based on information obtained in variety surveys from 20 parishes by the 
county agents in 2009 



NAR = No acres reported for parish 



Table 2. Estimated statewide sugarcane acreage percentage by variety and crop, all 
regions, 2009. ] 



Variety 


Plant- 
cane 


First- 
stubble 


Second- 
stubble 


Third- 
stubble 
and older 


Total 




% 


LCP 85-384 


<1 


1 


6 


33 


6 


HoCP 91-555 


<1 


<1 


1 


3 


1 


Ho 95-988 


1 


5 


8 


4 


5 


HoCP 96-540 


48 


52 


54 


39 


50 


L 97-128 


7 


19 


25 


14 


17 


L 99-226 


21 


13 


3 


1 


11 


L 99-233 


13 


7 


2 


<1 


6 


HoCP 00-950 


5 


2 


<1 


<1 


2 


L 01-283 


1 


<1 








<1 


Other 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


Total acres 
Percent of total crop 


114,627 
27.8 


131,532 
31.9 


121,636 
29.5 


44,532 
10.8 


412,327 



Based on information obtained in variety surveys from 20 parishes by county agents in 
2009. 

91 



Table 3. Estimated su 


garcane distribution by region and crop, 2009. 




Crop 


Bayou Teche 


River-Bayou 
Lafourche 


Northern 


State 
Total 


Plant-cane 
Area (acres) 
Percent (%) 


55,796 
31.3 


38,695 

23.7 


19,752 
27.9 


114,627 
27.8 




First-stubble 
Area (acres) 
Percent (%) 


54,548 
30.6 


54,206 

33.2 


23,079 
32.6 


131,532 
31.9 




Second-stubble 
Area (acres) 
Percent (%) 


50,983 
28.6 


48,981 
30.0 


21,592 
30.5 


121,636 
29.5 




Third-stubble and 
older 

Area (acres) 
Percent (%) 


16,935 
9.5 


21,389 
13.1 


6,371 
9.0 


44,532 
10.8 




Total area (acres) 
Percent (%) 


178,262 

43.2 


163,271 
39.6 


70,794 
17.2 


412,327 



Based on information obtained in variety surveys from 20 parishes by county agents in 
2009. 



92 



Table 4. Estimated area planted 
Bayou Teche region, 2 


to sugarcane in 
009. ' 


percent by variety and crop for the 




Variety 


Plant-cane 
crop 

(%) 


First-stubble 
crop 

(%) 


Second- 
stubble crop 

(%) 


Third-stubble 
crop & older 

(%) 


Total 

(%) 


LCP 85-384 





<1 


4 


29 


4 


HoCP 91-555 


<1 


<1 


1 


1 


1 


Ho QS-988 


1 


4 


5 


8 


3 


HnCP 96-S40 


52 


56 


58 


43 


54 


T. 97-178 


7 


18 


25 


15 


17 


T. 99-776 


23 


11 


3 


1 


11 


T. 99-733 


12 


7 


2 


<1 


6 


HoCP 00-950 


2 


1 


<1 





1 


T. 01 -783 


1 


<1 








<1 


Others 


2 


3 


2 


3 


3 


Totals 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 



Based on information obtained 
2009. 



in variety surveys from 7 parishes by county agents in 



Table 5. Estimated area planted to sugarcane in 
River/Bayou Lafourche region, 2009. l 


sercent by variety and crop for the 


Variety 


Plant-cane 
crop 

(%) 


First-stubble 
crop 

(%) 


Second- 
stubble crop 

(%) 


Third- stubble 
crop & older 

(%) 


Total 
(%) 


LCP 85-384 


<1 


2 


11 


40 


9 


HoCP 91-555 


<1 


<1 


1 


1 


<1 


Ho 95-988 


2 


6 


8 


6 


6 


HoCP 96-540 


40 


46 


48 


36 


44 


L 97-128 


9 


20 


24 


13 


18 


L 99-226 


19 


15 


4 


1 


11 


L 99-233 


18 


8 


2 


1 n 


7 


HoCP 00-950 


7 


2 


1 


<1 


3 


L 01-283 


4 


<1 


<1 





1 


Others 


1 


1 


1 


2 


1 


Totals 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


1 Based on inforn 


lation obtainec 


in variety surve 


ys from 8 parish 


es by county ag( 


mts in 



2009. 



93 



Table 6. Estimated area planted 
Northern region, 2009. 


to sugarcane in 

l 


percent by variety and crop for the 


Variety 


Plant-cane 
crop 

(%) 


First-stubble 
crop 

(%) 


Second- 
stubble crop 

(%) 


Third-stubble 
crop & older 

(%) 


Total 
(%) 


LCP 85-384 





<1 


2 


27 


3 


HoCP 91-555 








<1 





<1 


Ho 95-988 


1 


4 


14 


4 


6 


HoCP 96-540 


52 


53 


54 


50 


53 


L 97-128 


4 


20 


24 


14 


16 


L 99-226 


23 


14 


3 


1 


12 


L 99-233 


9 


4 


1 


<1 


4 


HoCP 00-950 


8 


2 


<1 





3 


L 01-283 

















Others 


3 


3 


2 


4 


3 


Totals 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


1 Based on infom 


lation obtainec 


in variety surve 


;ys from 5 parisl 


les by county ag 


ents in 



2009. 



94 



Table 7. Louisiana sugarcane variety trends, by variety and years, all regions, 2004- 
2009. ' 





Area planted to sugarcane by variety and years (%) 




Variety 


2005 


2006 


2007 


2008 


2009 


1 yr. 
Change 


LCP 85-384 


89 


73 


46 


22 


6 


-16 


HoCP 85-845 


2 


1 


2 


1 


<1 


-1 


HoCP 91-555 


4 


5 


3 


2 


1 


-1 


Ho 95-988 


<1 


2 


4 


5 


5 


-0 


HoCP 96-540 


3 


14 


31 


44 


50 


+6 


L 97-128 


1 


4 


12 


17 


17 


-0 


L 99-226 








1 


5 


11 


+6 


L 99-233 








<1 


2 


6 


+4 


HoCP 00-950 











1 


2 


+1 


L 01-283 














<1 


-0 


L 01-299 














<1 


-0 


Others 


<1 


<1 


1 


1 


2 


+1 


Totals 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 




1 Based on annuz 


il variety sur 


veys from 21 


parishes by county agents, 2005-2009 



NC = no change 



95 




Figure 1 . Parishes in Louisiana where sugarcane is grown. 



96 



ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK MODELS AS A DECISION 

SUPPORT TOOL FOR SELECTION IN SUGARCANE: A CASE STUDY 

USING CANE YIELD IN SEEDLING POPULATIONS 

Marvellous M. Zhou 1 , Collins A. Kimbeng 1 , Thomas L. Tew 2 , 

Kenneth A. Gravois and Keith Bischoff 

School of Plant, Environmental and Soil Sciences, 

2 USDA-ARS, Sugarcane Research Unit 

3 Sugar Research Station 



ABSTRACT 

Artificial neural network (ANN) models are mathematical models based on biological 
neural networks; they are a supervised learning method and use pattern learning from a training 
data set which is a sub-sample of the whole data to produce predictions of response variables. 
We demonstrate the potential of ANN models as a tool for selection in sugarcane. Cane-yield 
components, namely, stalk number, stalk height, and stalk diameter, were measured on 
individual seedlings and used as predictor variables to produce a selection decision (reject or 
select a seedling) based on the ANN model. Compared with the currently used visual method of 
selection, the difference in cane yield between the mean of the selected and rejected seedlings 
was greater for seedlings selected by the ANN model (Table 1). The difference increased when 
similar selection intensity was applied to both selection methods. Compared to the visual 
method, the ANN model selected fewer seedlings with cane yield lower than the population 
mean, and rejected fewer seedlings with cane yield higher than the population mean (Table 2). 
Although the potential of the ANN model as a selection tool in sugarcane is demonstrated using 
seedling populations, this concept can be expanded and applied to any stage of the program 
where multiple traits are measured. The ANN model compels the breeder to consider all traits 
simultaneously when deciding whether to select or reject a clone. This is likely to be more 
efficient than judging the merits of a clone by considering each trait independently or 
collectively in a serial manner. Efforts to adapt the ANN model into a selection index are 
currently underway. 



97 



Table 1 . Difference between the means of the selected and rejected seedlings expressed as a 
percent of the rejected seedlings for the seedlings selected using the visual method 
(Visual) and the artificial neural network model (ANN) for stalk number (Stalks), stalk 
height (Height), stalk diameter (Diameter) and cane yield (Cane) and the number of 
seedlings selected (# Selected) for the individual crosses. 





XLO 1-001 


XL01-050 


XLO 1-059 


XL01-215 


XLO 1-460 


Trait 


Visual 


ANN 


Visual 


ANN 


Visual 


ANN 


Visual 


ANN 


Visual ANN 


Stalks 


89 


104 


72 


76 


50 


88 


71 


77 


45 60 


Height (cm) 


-1 


-1 


9 


5 


4 


9 


7 


7 


2 


Diameter (cm) 


3 


6 


7 


16 


2 


6 


7 


6 


-14 14 


Cane (kg) 


104 


126 


115 


166 


59 


144 


119 


126 


73 100 


# Selected 


16 


21 


6 


16 


10 


14 


18 


18 


7 27 



Table 2. Number of seedlings that were rejected but that produced higher cane yield than the 
population mean or selected but produced lower cane yield than population mean by 
the visual and artificial neural network (ANN) method from two seedling (LSU 

AgCenter and USDA) populations. 

Rejected but produced Selected but produced 
higher cane yield than lower cane yield than 

population mean the population mean 

LSU AgCenter 

Rejected Visual = 21 Visual =17 

Selected ANN = ANN = 1 7 

USDA 

Rejected Visual = 88 Visual = 14 

Selected ANN = 79 ANN = 12 



98 



THE EFFECT OF NATURALLY OCCURRING OFF-TYPES ON SUGAR YIELD 
AND YIELD COMPONENTS IN L 01-283 

Herman Waguespack 
American Sugar Cane League 

Kenneth Gravois, Keith Bischoff, and Michael Pontif 
Sugar Research Station 



Prior to the release of L01-283 in 2008, several researchers noticed the occurrence of 
plants within the variety that had characteristics atypical of the normal plant population. These 
off-types occurred with varying frequencies but appeared to be stressed related. Herman 
Waguespack proposed that a yield trial be conducted to determine the effect of off-types on the 
sugar yield of L 01-283. We also wanted to determine if off-types plants were reproducible 
through vegetative propagation. 

A yield trial was planted on August 24, 2007 at the Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel, 
Louisiana. Herman Waguespack collected seed-cane from the Palo Alto Primary Increase 
Station. Two sets of seed were collected: normal stalks and stalks with characteristics 
associated with off-types, such as twisted leaf sheaths and stunted growth. The trial was planted 
in a randomized complete block design (three replications). Plot dimensions were two rows (six 
foot) that were 25 feet long and separated by a five foot alley. Treatments were plots planted 
with normal stalks and plots planted with off-type stalks. 

Standard cultural practices were followed during the 2008 and 2009 growing seasons. 
Millable stalk counts were made in early August and used to estimate stalk population (#/acre). 
The field trial was harvested on 12/12/2008 as a plantcane crop and on 12/16/2009 as a first 
stubble crop. Plots were combine harvested and weighed to determine cane yield (tons/acre). A 
15-stalk sample was hand-cut out of each plot and weighed to determine stalk weight (lbs). 
Afterwards, all 15 stalks were visually analyzed for the presence of absence of off-type 
characteristics. Seven stalks were measured with a caliper to determine stalk diameter (mm). 
Each sample was then sent to the laboratory to determine sucrose content and fiber content via 
NIR technology (SpectraCane). Sugar per acre was estimated as the product of sucrose content 
and cane yield. 

Data were analyzed with SAS (v9) software. Replication was considered a random 
effect; stalk type was considered a fixed effect. To adjust for any missing or unbalanced data, 
least square means were estimated. Least square means were tested for statistical significance 
(P=0.05) with the PDIFF option of PROC MIXED. 



99 



Table 1 . Plantcane data obtained from a field trial conducted at the Sugar Research Station in St. 

_^ Gabriel, Louisiana in 2008. 

Stalk Sugar Cane Yidd Sugar Off- Stalk Stalk Diameter ^ 

Type Yield Content Types Population Weight 

lbs/ac Tons/ac lbs/ac % #/acre lbs mm % 

Normal 
Stalks yD 

? ff " 7415 - 

T yP es 

f Plus (+) and minus (-) signs indicate values that are significantly greater or lower than normal 

stalks seed-cane sources. 



Table 2. First stubble data obtained from a field trial conducted at the Sugar Research Station in 
St. Gabriel, Louisiana in 2009. 



38.2 


250 


11.1 


27661 


2.79 


22.1 


10.2 


30.2 - 


245 


33.3 + 


21272 


2.85 


23.5 


10.2 



Stalk 
Type 


Sugar 
Yield 


Cane 
Yield 


Sugar 
Content 


Off- 
Types 


Stalk 
Population 


Stalk 
Weight 


Diameter 


Fiber 




lbs/ac 


Tons/ac 


lbs/ac 


% 


#/acre 


lbs 


mm 


% 


Normal 
Stalks 
Off- 
Types 


8231 
7085 


36.6 
33.0 


225 
215 


31.1 
44.5 


35449 

33525 


2.10 
1.99 


20.7 
19.7 


10.1 
10.7 



f Plus (+) and minus (-) signs indicate values that are significantly greater or lower than normal 
stalks seed-cane sources. 



100 



YIELD AND FIBER CONTENT OF HIGH FIBER SUGARCANE CLONES 



Kenneth Gravois, Keith Bischoff and Michael Pontif 
Sugar Research Station 

Brian Baldwin 
Dept. of Plant & Soil Sciences 
Mississippi State, MS 39762 

In 2008, the LSU AgCenter partnered with Mississippi State University to evaluate high 
fiber sugarcane clones (energycane). Dr. Brian Baldwin of Mississippi State University is the 
coordinator of the Sun Grant proposal: "Regional Biomass Feedstock - Herbaceous Bioenergy 
Crop Field Trial". These trials are located across the southeastern U.S. 

A yield trial was planted on September 18, 2008 at the Sugar Research Station in St. 
Gabriel, Louisiana. Seed cane of five varieties was obtained at the Ardoyne Farm from Dr. Ed 
Richard of the USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory. 

Standard cultural practices were followed during the 2009 growing seasons. The field 
trial was harvested on 12/16/2009 as a plantcane crop. Plots were combine harvested and 
weighed to determine cane yield (tons/acre). A 1 0-stalk sample was hand-cut out of each plot 
for a quality analysis. Each sample was then sent to the laboratory to determine Brix and fiber 
content with NIR technology (SpectraCane). 

Data were analyzed with SAS (v9.2) software. Replication was considered a random 
effect; variety was considered a fixed effect. Least square means were estimated and tested for 
statistical significance (P=0.05) with the PDIFF option of PROC MIXED. 

Table 1 . Plantcane data obtained from an energycane field trial conducted at the Sugar Research 
Station in St. Gabriel, Louisiana in 2009. 



Variety 



Cane 
Yield 



Brix 



Fiber 
Content 



Dry 

Weight 



Brix 

Weight 



tons/ac 



% 



% 



tons/ac 



tons/ac 



Ho 02-144 


30.5 


B 


12.5 


A 


20.6 


B 


6.27 


C 


3.86 


AB 


Ho 02-147 


44.2 


A 


10.7 


B 


17.8 


C 


7.87 


AB 


4.72 


A 


Ho 06-9001 


28.9 


B 


10.7 


B 


26.4 


A 


7.58 


ABC 


3.10 


BC 


Ho 06-9002 


25.5 


B 


10.1 


BC 


25.3 


A 


6.44 


BC 


2.56 


C 


HoCP 72-114 


42.8 


A 


9.2 


C 


20.7 


B 


8.84 


A 


3.96 


AB 



101 



SMALL PLOT ASSESSMENT OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST THE 
SUGARCANE BORER, 2009 

T. E. Reagan, W. Akbar, B. E. Wilson, J. Hamm, and J. M. Beuzelin 
Department of Entomology 



Six different insecticide treatments, in addition to an untreated check, were assessed for 
season-long control of the sugarcane borer (SCB) in a randomized complete block design RCBD 
with five replications in a field of variety HoCP 96-540 plantcane near Burns Point, La. 
Insecticide treatments were applied to 3-row plots (24 ft) on July 7 and August 6, 2009. 
Treatments were mixed in 2 gallons of water and applied using a Solo back pack sprayer 
delivering 40 gpa at 20 psi. Borer injury to sugarcane was assessed by counting the total number 
of internodes (12 stalks/plot), number of bored internodes and moth emergence holes in each 
stalk at the time of harvest (October 13). The proportion of bored internodes and emergence 
holes were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (Proc Glimmix, SAS Institute) with 
a binomial distribution for percentage of bored internodes and a Poisson distribution for number 
of exit holes per plot. The means were separated with Tukey's HSD (a = 0.05). 

The percentage of bored internodes in the treated plots ranged between 1-5% and was 
significantly less than the 28% observed in the untreated check (Table 1). Coragen at 5.0 oz/acre 
rate showed a trend for the most reduction in internode damage; however, significant differences 
were not detected among the insecticide treatments. The numbers of exit holes made by the 
prepupa in the stalks were also lower in all insecticide treatments than in the untreated check 
(Table 1). 

Table 1 . Insecticidal control of the sugarcane borer in a small plot test near Burns Point, LA. 
Treatment 3 Rate (oz/acre) % Bored Internodes/plot Exit Holes/stalk 

Check - 28.07a 1.49b 

4.97b 0.05a 



Confirm 


8.0 


Belt 


3.0 


Baythroid 


2.1 


Belt 


4.0 


Diamond 


9.0 


Coragen 


5.0 



3.09b 0.13a 

3.07b 0.14a 

2.46b 0.14a 

1.82b 0.10a 

1.38b 0.10a 



insecticide treatments were applied with Induce surfactant at 0.5% v/v. 

Means within column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > .05, Tukey's HSD). 



102 



SMALL PLOT ASSESSMENT OF WIREWORM CONTROL IN SUGARCANE, 2009 

T. E. Reagan, W. Akbar, J. M. Beuzelin, and B. E. Wilson 
Department of Entomology 

Three new environmentally friendly insecticides along with Mocap® (ethoprop), an 
organophosphate, were compared to the untreated check for wireworm control near Burns Point, 
La. Whole stalks of variety HoCP 96-540 were planted on September 29, 2008. The treatment 
plots consisted of three 24 ft rows with 1 ft gaps between plots, with a total of 5 replications. 
The granular formulations were mixed with corn cob grits for even distribution of the chemical. 
Liquid formulations were mixed in water and sprayed using a backpack sprayer. The number of 
shoots emerged in the center row of each plot was counted on December 8, 2008 and again on 
April 7, 2009. Plots were harvested in January 2010 using a combine harvester, and the central 
row of each plot was weighed and sampled to assess yield. 

Differences were not detected in the number of shoots emerged by December 2008. April 
sampling indicated the highest numbers of shoots in plots treated with liquid Coragen 
(rynaxypyr), significantly greater than the granular formulation but not from the untreated check 
or other insecticide treatments. Cane and sugar yields ranged from 32-41 tons/acre and 229-238 
lbs/ton, respectively, with no differences among treatments (Table 1). In contrast to several rice 
studies with treated seed, this experiment did not show any systemic activity with Coragen 
against the sugarcane borer. 



Table 1. Soil insecticides targeting wireworm injury on sugarcane emergence and yield. 



Treatment 


Formulation 


a 

Rate 


Shoots/acre 


Yield 
(ton/acre) 


Sugar 


Dec 08 


Apr 09 


(lbs/ton) 


Admire Pro b 


Liquid 


14 


14,037 a 


41,820 ab 


40.5 a 


229 a 


Mocap 


Liquid 


20 


16,457 a 


43,078 ab 


40.3 a 


236 a 


NUQ05055 


Granular 


13.4 


15,005 a 


44,676 ab 


39.8 a 


234 a 


Coragen 


Liquid 


7 


14,279 a 


45,015a 


38.1a 


234 a 


Coragen 


Granular 


21 


13,117a 


38,722 b 


32.6 a 


237 a 


Control 




- 


13,746 a 


39,884 ab 


31.7a 


238 a 



a oz/acre for liquid formulation, lbs/acre for granular formulation; b active ingredient is imidacloprid 
Means within column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > .05, Tukey's HSD). 



103 



EVALUATION OF AERIAL INSECTICIDAL CONTROL OF THE MEXICAN RICE 

BORER IN SUGARCANE, 2009 

T. E. Reagan 1 , Blake E. Wilson 1 , Waseem Akbar 1 , Mien Beuzelin 1 , and A.T. Showier 2 
Department of Entomology and USDA-ARS Weslaco, Texas 



Evaluation of aerial insecticidal control of the Mexican rice borer (MRB), Eoreuma 
loftini, was conducted in a large area Randomized Block Design (RBD) with five replications. 
Insecticide treatments were assigned randomly to plots (10 acres/plot) in fields ranging from 36- 
85 acres of variety CP 72-1210 first stubble cane in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Cameron 
County, Texas). Pheromone-trap-assisted-scouting was used to monitor MRB population 
densities and effectively time the need for insecticide applications. Trap catches of >20-25 
moths/trap/week were used as a scouting threshold to initiate monitoring for larval infestations 
(Table 1). Treatable larval infestations (present in leaf sheaths) were determined by collecting 
two ten stalk samples per plot. Infestations ranged from 5.0 to 32.1% with a mean of 13.8% 
stalks infested (Table 1) on 20 Aug. Applications were made the morning of 21 Aug by fixed 
wing aircraft at 1 GPA with less than 5 mph wind. Bored internode and emergence hole counts 
were recorded on 28 Oct; 30 stalks from two locations (15 - front, 15 - back) per treatment plot 
were sampled. 

The recently labeled (Section 3 for sugarcane) environmentally friendly insecticide, 
Diamond® (MAN A), applied at 12oz/a showed the best control with 6.9% bored internodes, 
which was significantly less than both the untreated plots (20.4% bored) and the Baythroid 
(2.8oz/a) treated plots (Figure 1). Baythroid® (Bayer) treated plots (12.6% bored) were not 
significantly different from untreated plots (Figure 1). Differences in moth emergence followed 
the same trend although significant differences were not detected among treatments (Figure 2). 
Results indicate that Diamond® provided superior control to the traditionally used pyrethroid 
insecticide, Baythroid (Bayer). This study demonstrates the potential of pheromone-trap- 
assisted-scouting to reduce scouting effort and optimally time insecticide applications. Ongoing 
research will determine if insecticide treatments increased subsequent sugarcane yields and will 
further correlate adult densities to larval infestation levels. 



This research is a portion of the M.S. Thesis program of Blake Wilson in the Department of 
Entomology. 



104 



Table 1 : Season long pheromone trap catches. 



Number of male MRB moths per trap % 

Infestation 

a 

Field # 7/1 7/2 7/2 8/5 8/1 8/1 8/20 8/2 9/ 9/9 9/1 9/2 10/1 8/20 
5 2 9 2 9 Ida 

y 6 2 6 3 4 



1 


7 


5 


5 


12 


35 


18 


6 


27 


15 


6 


13 


8 


2 


5.0 


2 


4 


11 


22 


37 


31 


20 


5 


40 


21 


7 


2 


8 


2 


10.5 


3 


5 


9 


5 


17 


16 


12 


6 


29 


19 


10 


7 


2 


2 


12.5 


4 


16 


9 


15 


15 


22 


24 


3 


23 


29 


24 


12 


20 


3 


8.8 


5 


7 


14 


13 


12 


37 


20 


6 


21 


38 


16 


8 


21 


4 


32.1 



live larval infestations in leaf sheath 



105 



Figure 1: Percent Bored Internodes 






Untreated Baythroid Diamond 

Data was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binomial 
distribution. F— 16.37, Df=2, 7.2, P=0.0021. Means were separated using 
Tukey's HSD (P<0.05). 



Figure 2: Moth Emergence 




Untreated 



Baythroid 



Diamond 



Data was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a Poisson 
distribution. F=. 71; Df=2, 7.1; P=0.525. Means were separated using Tukey's 
HSD(P<0.05). 



106 



OVIPOSITION PREFERENCE AND IMMATURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
MEXICAN RICE BORER ON MAJOR NON-CROP HOSTS 

T.E. Reagan, J.M Beuzelin, L.T. Wilson*, A.T. Showier*, A. Meszaros, and B.E. Wilson 

Department of Entomology 



A greenhouse experiment was conducted at the Texas A&M AGRILife Research and 
Extension Center at Beaumont, TX to determine the oviposition preference and duration of 
development of Mexican rice borers (MRB) on primary non-crop hosts as affected by plant 
species and stage. An annual crop grass, rice (cv. Cocodrie), two perennial grasses 
(johnsongrass, vaseygrass), and two annual grasses (brome, ryegrass) were used. Plantings were 
scheduled to obtain the different phenological stages at the same time. Rice and the perennials 
were evaluated at three phenological stages while the annuals were evaluated at two 
phenological stages for a total of 13 plant species by phenology combinations (Table 1). This 
experiment was arranged as a complete randomized block design with cages (n = 13) used as 
blocks. Cages (1.3 m by 1.3 m by 1.80m) were constructed from 1.27 cm PVC and covered with 
a fine white mesh cloth. Each cage contained all of the 13 plant species by phenology 
combinations. Ten MRB females and 5-10 MRB males (mated, ca. 36h old), obtained from a 
USDA Weslaco, TX colony were released in each cage between 6:00 and 7:00 PM. Prior to 
MRB adult release in the cages, plant fresh weight was determined using separate samples of 5 
representative plants from each of the 13 plant species by phenology combinations. 

Three days after adult release, each plant was inspected and the number of eggs recorded. 
In this study, 95%< of the eggs were laid on dry plant material. Oviposition preference was 
expressed as the proportion of total eggs laid per gram of plant fresh weight. Rice plants 
consistently had the greatest proportion of eggs (Fig. 1). Johnsongrass and vaseygrass received 
2-3 fold fewer eggs than rice, whereas brome received an insignificant proportion of the eggs. 
MRB did not lay eggs on ryegrass. A greater proportion of eggs were laid on intermediate and 
older plants (Fig. 1), likely associated with the increased availability of dry foliage. 

Plants were dissected for MRB larvae and pupae 6 weeks after oviposition determination. 
Under greenhouse experimental conditions, substantial interplant movement of early MRB 
instars was observed, and all of the 13 plant species by phenology combinations were infested 
with borers. Recovered larvae and pupae were reared in the greenhouse on artificial diet until 
adult eclosion. For each recovered MRB immature, full development duration was estimated. 
Because the development of cold-blooded organisms such as insects is temperature dependent, 
development durations were expressed in physiological time. The minimum temperature when 
development occurs is called the lower developmental threshold (Tl), and the physiological time 
needed for development is expressed in degree-days (°D) above Tl that are accumulated: 

Development time in °D = (Daily temper ature-Ti) x Development time in days 

*L.T. Wilson is affiliated with the Texas A&M University Center at Beaumont, TX. A.T. Showier is affiliated with 
the USDA-ARS Kika de la Garza Research Center at Weslaco, TX. 
This research is part of the Ph.D. dissertation research program of Mien Beuzelin 



107 



A lower developmental threshold Ti = 14.5 °C and development time of 576 °D on 
artificial diet was determined from previous studies on MRB biology (van Leerdam 1986). 
Because MRB larvae and pupae recovered after plant dissection were reared on artificial diet 
until adult emergence, development time completed on diet after plant dissection was recorded, 
and full development duration on a plant until adult emergence could be estimated. MRB 
development was the fastest on rice (Fig. 2) although brome and ryegrass were also suitable 
hosts. Development on johnsongrass and vaseygrass slowest (Fig. 2), 1.6 and 1.5-fold slower 
than on rice, respectively. Trends for slower development on younger plants were observed. 

Previous multi-area transect studies showed that non-crop hosts could play a key role in 
MRB population dynamics and identified primary non-crop hosts. This greenhouse study 
quantified MRB egg laying and larval development on rice and primary non-crop grasses. This 
quantification provides a better understanding of MRB ecology and will assist in the 
development of management tactics impacting non-crop hosts. 



Table 1. Plant species by development stage combinations tested in a greenhouse experiment 
assessing MRB oviposition and immature development duration on major non-crop 
hosts. 



Rice 

(Oryza sativa) 

Johnsongrass 

{Sorghum halepense) 

Vaseygrass 

(Paspalum urvillei) 

Brome 

{Bromus spp.) 

Ryegrass 

(Lolium spp.) 



Young 
plants 


Intermediate 
plants 

(age in weeks after planting) 


Old 
plants 


5 


9 


13 


6 


10 


14 


7 


12 


17 


6 


10 


— 


6 


10 


__ 



Reference cited: 

Van Leerdam, M. B. 1986. Bionomics of Eoreuma loftini, a pyralid stalk borer of sugarcane. 
PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 



108 



+1 


0.6 -I 


5 


0.5 - 

a 

0.4 - 


/ g fresh 
SE 


0.3 - 
0.2 - 


U) 

o 


0.1 - 


(0 


n _ 


o 


U n 



abccL 



ab 
a T x 



abc^ 



Younq ■ Intermediate ■ Old 




*%**<«*** >i^ 9t8SS 






T-Tj-d- 



^W 



tass 



Fig. 1 MRB oviposition preference on rice and primary non-crop hosts 
SAS Proc MIXED: Plant species: P<0.001, Stage(Plant species): P<0.001 
Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey's HSD, a = 0.05) 

■ Young ■ Intermediate ■ Old 



*%««**** *-***** 



bed 

, bed 




***** W e ^ aSS 



Fig. 2 MRB immature development duration on rice and primary non-crop hosts 
SAS Proc MIXED: Plant species: P<0. 001, Stage(Plant species): P=0. 006 
Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey's HSD, a = 0.05) 



109 



SMALL PLOT ASSESSMENT OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST THE MEXICAN RICE 

BORER 

T. E. Reagan, J. M. Beuzelin ,W. Akbar, and B. E. Wilson 
Department of Entomology 



A study was conducted at the Texas A&M University research site at Ganado, TX 
(Jackson County) to evaluate insecticides for management of the Mexican rice borer (MRB) in 
sugarcane. Four insecticide treatments, in addition to an untreated check, were assessed for 
season-long control of MRB. The experiment was arranged following a randomized complete 
block design (RCBD) with 4 replicates and 1-row plots (15 ft each, cultivar Ho 95-988) planted 
in Nov 2008. Insecticides were applied to plots on 19 Jun, 22 Jul, and 20 Aug, 2009. Insecticides 
were mixed in 2 gal of water and applied using a Solo backpack sprayer delivering 10 gpa at 14 
psi. MRB injury was assessed by recording the number of bored internodes and the total number 
of internodes from 12 stalks per plot at the time of harvest (24 Sep, 2009). MRB moth 
production recorded as the no. adult emergence holes for each stalk was also assessed. The 
proportion of bored internodes and emergence hole frequency were analyzed using generalized 
linear mixed models (Proc GLIMMIX, SAS Institute) with binomial and Poisson distributions, 
respectively. Means were separated using Tukey's HSD. 

Under extremely heavy MRB infestations (ca. 65% bored internodes in the untreated 
control), Belt decreased MRB injury to a greater extent than Diamond (Table 1). However, MRB 
control with Belt was not different from that observed with Baythroid. Confirm applications 
were not associated with significant decreases in MRB injury. Numerical trends (P < 0.10) for 
differences in no. moth emergence holes indicate that in addition to decreasing MRB injury, 
insecticides have the potential to decrease the production of MRB populations. 

Table 1. Insecticidal control of Mexican rice borer, small plot test at Ganado, TX, 2009. 

Insecticide 3 Rate (oz/a) % Bored Internodes No. emergence holes / stalk 
(LSMeans ± SE) b (LSMeans ± SE) b 



Baythroid 


2.8 


22.0 ±4.81 be 


0.46 ±0.18 a 


Belt 


4.0 


8.12 ± 2.32 c 


0.00 ±0.00 a 


Confirm 


12.0 


41.54 ± 6.79 ab 


0.83 ± 0.30 a 


Diamond 


12.0 


25.52 ± 5.34 b 


0.60 ± 0.22 a 


Check 


NA 


64.79 ± 5.65 a 


0.98 ± 0.35 a 


F value 




16.75 


2.41 


p value 




<.0001 


0.0987 



All treatments were applied with the nonionic surfactant Induce at 0.25% v/v. 
Means within coll 
.05,Tukey's HSD). 



Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 



110 



PATHOLOGY RESEARCH 

Jeffrey W. Hoy, Carolyn F. Savario, and Raghuwinder Singh 
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology 



Pathology research addresses the important diseases affecting sugarcane in Louisiana. 
The overall program goal is to minimize losses to diseases in a cost-effective manner. Projects 
receiving emphasis during 2009 included: evaluating brown rust management with fungicides; 
support of healthy seedcane programs to manage ratoon stunting disease (RSD), yellow leaf, and 
other systemic diseases; development of new pathogen detection methods; determining the 
molecular nature of resistance to leaf scald; screening for new sources of resistance to red rot; 
evaluating disease resistance in the variety selection program; and billet planting. Research 
results on billet planting are reported separately. 

BROWN RUST 

The efficacy of fungicides for control of brown rust of sugarcane, caused by Puccinia 
melanocephala, was evaluated in multiple field experiments during 2009. A large experiment 
comparing multiple fungicides applied singly or in combinations at multiple rates with one, two, 
or a single delayed start application was conducted at the LSU AgCenter Sugar Research Station 
at St. Gabriel Louisiana. An experiment with multiple fungicide treatments applied as replicated 
plots was conducted in a commercial sugarcane field in Assumption Parish. A trial with 
complete five-row strips treated with Headline fungicide was conducted in St. Martin Parish. 
Data was not collected from one replicated plot experiment and two Headline strip trials due to 
insufficient rust development and one Headline strip trial due to weather conditions that 
prevented harvest. 

The experiment at the Sugar Research Station included 24 treatments (Table 1). 
Fungicides were applied to plantcane of the brown rust susceptible variety, LCP 85-384, with a 
two-row CO2 backpack sprayer. Treatments were applied on a 36 inch band to two-rows, 30 ft. 
in length with two non-treated rows as buffer between treatments and a 5 ft. non-treated section 
of row along rows between treatments. Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized 
complete block design. The first fungicide application date was 16 May. The delayed start single 
application was made on 1 June. Treatments with two applications were treated for the second 
time on 3 June. Rust infection was delayed due to cool spring temperatures, but once the 
epidemic began, symptoms were severe with extensive lesions on newly emerged leaves. Brown 
rust symptom severity was assessed on the youngest fully emerged leaf by image analysis only 
once 1 6 days after the first application. Rust severity was assessed by image analysis on the 
youngest fully emerged leaf for eight leaves per plot. 

All fungicide treatments in the Sugar Research Station experiment reduced rust severity 
compared to the non-treated control, and differences in ability to suppress rust severity were 
detected among fungicide treatments (Table 2). Harvesting conditions were poor, wet with 
extreme lodging in some sections of the field, so the yield results (Table 1) should be interpreted 
cautiously. The treatment consisting of two applications of Headline at 6 oz/acre tank mixed with 



111 



Caramba at 8 oz/acre increased cane tonnage yield 12.5 tons (50%) and sugar per acre by 2,221 
lbs. (47%). This difference is the greatest observed in any experiment conducted in Louisiana to 
this point. The Section 18 treatment of two applications of Headline at 9 oz/acre increased 
tonnage yield 9 tons (36%) and sugar yield 1,381 lbs. (29%). Headline applied only one time 
increased yield only when applied at 12 oz/acre. A delayed single application of Headline 
increased yield only at the 9 oz rate. Pre-mixes of pyraclostrobin and metconazole increased 
yield only with the UUF formulation. The Bayer pre-mixes did not consistently increase yield. 
The Dupont fungicide did not increase yield. 

Fungicides were applied to HoCP 96-540 plantcane with a brown rust epidemic already 
underway in a field in Assumption Parish. This experiment evaluated the ability of different 
treatments to reduce rust severity and prevent yield loss after the disease was already established 
in the crop. Ten treatments (Table 3) were applied with a backpack sprayer as described above 
on a 36 inch band to two-rows, 30 ft. in length with two non-treated rows as buffer between 
treatments and a 5 ft. non-treated section of row along rows between treatments. Treatments 
were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Most treatments consisted of 
two applications made on 28 April and 19 May (21 day interval). One treatment of a tank mix of 
Headline + Caramba was applied three times on 29 April, 12 May, and 28 May. Rust symptom 
severity was assessed by image analysis once on 12 May (14 days after the first fungicide 
application). The leaf area affected by rust lesions was determined on the second fully emerged 
leaf for eight leaves per plot. Millable stalks per plot were counted on 23 July, and the field was 
harvested on 4 January, 2010. The cane was lodged at the time of harvest. 

Brown rust symptom severity was only moderate (11% for leaves in non-treated plots) at 
the time of assessment, and no significant reductions were detected in plots with different 
fungicide treatments. Rust symptom severity began to abate naturally soon after the first 
fungicide application. Variation in the degree of cane lodging caused some variability in the 
yield data collected, and the experiment results may have been affected. The only significant 
difference detected was an increase in sugar per acre of 1,528 lbs (15%) in the plots receiving 
one application of Headline at 9 oz/acre compared to the non-treated control. 

Four 5-row strips of HoCP 96-540 plantcane were treated either once or twice with 
Headline at 9 oz/acre applied on a 36 inch band to a field in St. Martin Parish. Application dates 
were 30 April and 21 May. The first Headline application was made just before severe brown 
rust symptoms developed in non-treated rows. The leaf area occupied by rust lesions was 17.3% 
for the youngest fully emerged leaf in the non-treated rows compared to 1 .2% for Headline 
treated leaves 1 2 days after the first application, indicating that rust was effectively controlled by 
the fungicide application. Rust symptoms began to abate naturally after the first application; 
however, a second application was made for comparison. Millable stalk populations were 
determined on 24 July, and the field was harvested on 3 December. The field was lodged at the 
time of harvest. 

Millable stalk population and stalk weight were increased by both one and two 
applications of Headline (Table 4). Cane tonnage and sugar per acre yield were only significantly 
increased in the single Headline application treatment compared to the non-treated control. 
Tonnage was increased 3.4 tons (7%), and sugar yield was increased 777 lbs. (8%). The 



112 



increases in stalk population and weight suggested that tonnage would be higher in the two 
application treatment. Challenging conditions at harvest may have prevented the detection of 
treatment differences. 

Brown rust symptom severity 16 days after Headline treatment was 8.7% for non-treated 
leaves (youngest fully emerged leaf) compared to 1 .2% for treated rows in an experiment in St. 
Mary Parish with entire treated rows of HoCP 96-540 plantcane that was not harvested. 

The 2009 experimental results continue to indicate that the treatment allowed by the 
Section 1 8 emergency use label to control brown rust (up to two applications of Headline 
fungicide at a rate of 9 oz/acre) will provide a positive economic return when an epidemic begins 
in April or May. LCP 85-384 currently sustains more damage from rust, and the benefits of 
control are greater. The Headline strip trial with HoCP 96-540 provides the first results with the 
variety now occupying the most acreage in Louisiana. At this time, epidemics of brown rust in 
HoCP 96-540 are of shorter duration, and the resulting yield loss is less. However, a well-timed 
fungicide application will prevent significant yield loss and provide a positive economic return. 
The Assumption Parish experiment results with fungicides applied to plants with rust already 
established on the newly emerged leaves supports the results of tests in previous years with 
already rust-infected LCP 85-384. This "rescue mission" approach reduces the severity of 
symptoms on new leaves and may reduce the impact of the disease on yield. However, the 
economic benefit is much less than when fungicide is applied prior to the infection of the young, 
newly emerged leaves that contribute the most to plant growth. Other fungicides and fungicide 
combinations continue to reduce brown rust symptom severity and associated yield loss. The 
results indicate that additional possibilities exist to provide cost effective treatments for brown 
rust control in Louisiana. 

HEALTHY SEEDCANE PROGRAM SUPPORT AND DISEASE DETECTION METHODS 

Ratoon stunting disease (RSD) testing was conducted by the Sugarcane Disease 
Detection Lab for the 13 th year during 2009. RSD was monitored on farms, in the LSU AgCenter 
Variety Selection Program, in the American Sugar Cane League Variety Release Program, and in 
the Kleentek and SugarTech® (Helena Chemical Co.) seedcane production systems (Table 5). A 
total of 2,789 samples were tested. No RSD was detected at any level of Kleentek production or 
in ASCL Variety Release Program samples. Little RSD testing was performed on commercial 
farms. RSD was only detected in one of 39 fields tested. 

The Sugarcane Disease Detection Lab also monitored for Sugarcane yellow leaf virus in 
the LSU AgCenter Variety Selection Program, the ASCL Variety Release Program, and 
SugarTech® and Kleentek® seedcane sources (Table 6). A total of 10,013 samples were tested. 
Commercial tissue culture seedcane sources were tested for the third season as part of the 
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Seedcane Certification Program. No field 
failed to certify due to virus infection. 

Six varieties were processed through the Local Quarantine to provide healthy material to 
establish Foundation Stock plants that will serve as the source for tissue culture seedcane 
production. A real-time, quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction assay for the leaf scald 



113 



pathogen, Xanthomonas albilineans, was developed for use in disease monitoring and research. 

MOLECULAR NATURE OF RESISTANCE TO LEAF SCALD 

Research utilizing a proteomics approach to determine the molecular basis of resistance 
to leaf scald is in progress. The proteins (gene products) produced by a leaf scald resistant 
variety, Ho 95-988, and a susceptible variety, HoCP 89-846, are being compared in inoculated 
and non-inoculated plants. Proteins that are differentially regulated following infection by 
Xanthomonas albilineans have been observed. Selected proteins will be identified and evaluated 
for an association with resistance to leaf scald. It should be possible to infer possible mechanisms 
of resistance, and molecular markers for resistance selection might be developed in the future. 

EVALUATING RESISTANCE TO RED ROT 

The basic germplasm collection utilized by the basic breeding program at the USDA- 
ARS Sugarcane Research Unit in Houma was screened for new sources of resistance to red rot, 
caused by Colletotrichum falcatum, in cooperation with Dr. Anna Hale. In addition, progeny 
from early generation crosses with basic parents were evaluated for resistance to study the 
inheritance of resistance. Four stalks per clone were inoculated in a central stalk internode with 
spores of the pathogen. Stalks were held to allow stalk rot to develop then split and evaluated for 
disease severity. Variation in red rot severity was detected among clones in both experiments, 
and new potential sources of resistance were identified. The highest frequencies of resistance 
were detected among Saccharum barberi and S. spontaneum accessions. Three of 31 S. 
spontaneum (10%) and four of 14 S. barberi (29%) accessions exhibited high resistance to red 
rot. All Erianthus accessions were highly resistant. The most easily utilized sources of resistance 
will be selected S. barberi and S. spontaneum clones. 

VARIETY SELECTION 

Disease resistance levels were evaluated as a routine part of the Variety Selection 
Program. Inoculated tests to determine resistance levels in experimental varieties to smut and 
leaf scald were not conducted during 2009 because of Hurricane Gustav. Visual ratings were 
used to evaluate resistance to brown rust in out-field yield trial plots. 



114 



Table 1. Effect of fungicides on yield of LCP 85-384 plantcane in Sugar Research Station 
experiment conducted during 2009. 





Stalk 




< 






weight 


Sugar/ton 


Tons cane 


Sugar/acre 


Treatment 1 


(lbs.) 2 


(lbs.) 2 


per acre 2 


(lbs.) 2 



Non-treated 1.81 abc 187abcde 

Headline 6 oz, 1 application 1.81 abc 181 cde 

Headline 6 oz, 2 applications 1.87 abc 195 abc 

Headline 6 oz, 1 application delayed start 1 .62 be 1 84 abede 

Headline 9 oz, 1 application 1.79 abc 189 abede 

Headline 9 oz, 2 applications 1.79 abc 178 e 

Headline 9 oz, 1 application delayed start 1 .94 a 1 80 de 

Headline 12 oz, 1 application 1.76 abc 192 abed 

Headline 12 oz, 2 applications 1.93 a 185 abede 

Headline 12 oz, 1 application delayed 1.69 abc 184 abede 
start 

Headline 6 oz + Caramba 8 oz, 1 app. 1.87 abc 190 abede 

Headline 6 oz + Caramba 8 oz, 2 app. 1 .89 ab 1 82 cde 

Headline 6 oz + Caramba 8 oz, 1 .73 abc 1 78 de 
1 application delayed start 

BASF 1 F 9 oz, 2 applications 1 .72 abc 181 cde 

BASF 1 F 1 1 oz, 2 applications 1 .80 abc 1 96 ab 

BASF UUF 1 oz, 2 applications 1 .76 abc 1 78 e 

BASF UUF 12 oz, 2 applications 1 .71 abc 1 82 bede 

Caramba 14 oz, 2 applications 1.67 abc 187 abede 

Stratego 19 oz, 2 applications 1.89 ab 182 bede 

Bayer 1, 8 oz, 1 application 1.79 abc 187 abede 

Bayer 1 , 8 oz, 2 applications 1.75 abc 189 abede 

Bayer 1, 8 oz, 1 application delayed start 1.91 ab 197 a 

Bayer 2, 2 applications 1.75 abc 183 abede 

Dupont 24 oz, 2 applications 1.59 c 186 abede 



25.2 g 
29.0 cdefg 
33.2 abede 
30.2 cdefg 
28.0 defg 
34.2 abed 
33.2 abede 
35.0 abc 
31.7 
bedefg 
29.8 cdefg 

33.5 abede 
37.8 a 

29.7 cdefg 

30.5 cdefg 

27.8 efg 
37.0 ab 
34.5 abc 
28.8 cdefg 
30.2 cdefg 
32.8 
abedef 
26.8 fg 
30.2 cdefg 
31.2 
bedefg 
29.0 cdefg 



4703 g 
5240 fg 
6472 abede 
5567 cdefg 
5271 fg 
6084 abedef 
5999 abedef 
6730 abc 
5852 bedefg 

5485 efg 

6139 abedef 
6924 a 
5639 bedefg 

5529 defg 
4955 fg 
6703 abed 
6768 ab 
5090 fg 
5495 efg 
6144 abedef 

5004 fg 
5965 abedef 
5718 bedefg 

5370 efg 



First application May 16; second application June 3; delayed start application June 1. 

~ Means within columns followed by different letters were significantly different (P=0.05). 



115 



Table 2. Reductions in brown rust symptom severity provided by different fungicide treatments 
in LCP 85-384 plantcane in Sugar Research Station experiment conducted at during 
2009. 



Fungicide treatment 



Brown rust severity (%Y 



Non-treated control 

Headline 6 oz, 1 application 

Headline 9 oz, 1 application 

Headline 12 oz, 1 application 

Headline 6 oz + Caramba 8 oz, 1 application 

BASF 1 F 9 oz, 2 applications 

BASF OIF 11 oz, 2 applications 

BASF UUF 10 oz, 2 applications 

BASF UUF 12 oz, 2 applications 

Stratego 1 9 oz, 2 applications 

Bayer 1 , 8 oz, 1 application 

Bayer 2, 2 applications 

Dupont 24 oz, 2 applications 



27.9 a 

5.8 cd 

5.9 cd 

4.3 d 

5.1 cd 

18.2 b 
7.7 cd 
11.1 cd 

8.4 cd 
6.9 cd 

11.3 be 

8.2 cd 

7.3 cd 



All fungicides applied on 5/16/09 with 0.125% non-ionic surfactant (except Dupont with 
0.25%). 

Rust leaf infection percentage determined by image analysis on youngest fully emerged leaf at 
1 6 days after fungicide application. Percentage means followed by different letters were 
significantly different (P=0.05). 



Table 3. Effect of fungicides on brown rust severity and yield of HoCP 96-540 plantcane in 
experiment conducted in Assumption Parish during 2009. 





Rust 




Stalk 










severit 


Stalks/acre 


weight 


Sugar/ton 


Tons 


Sugar/acre 


Treatment 1 


y (%) 


(xlOOO) 


(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


cane/acre 


(lbs.) 2 



Non-treated 


10.8 


40.8 


2.43 


202 


50.7 


10199 be 


Headline 9 oz, 1 app. 


6.3 


44.2 


2.33 


203 


58.0 


11727 a 


Headline 9 oz, 2 app. 


~ 


45.6 


2.49 


218 


53.0 


11522ab 


Headline 12 oz, 1 app. 


2.1 


42.9 


2.43 


209 


52.5 


10898 ab 


Headline 6 oz + Caramba 


4.7 


42.2 


2,34 


214 


51.5 


10988 ab 


8 oz, 1 app. 














Headline 6 oz + Caramba 


~ 


44.3 


2.33 


205 


51.3 


11073 ab 


8 oz, 2 app. 














Headline 6 oz + Caramba 


3.4 


43.3 


2.19 


201 


53.7 


9357 c 


8 oz, 3 app. 














BASF 01F 9 oz, 2 app. 


3.9 


42.2 


2.49 


207 


46.7 


10572 abc 


BASF UUF 10 oz, 2 app. 


3.9 


43.9 


2.59 


208 


51.3 


10220 be 


Bayer USF 8 oz, 2 app. 


2.7 


42.6 


2.36 


198 


49.3 


10365 abc 



First fungicide application (app.) 4/28; 2 week treatment (second application) 5/12; second 
regular application 5/19; 2 week treatment (third application) 5/28. 
2 Means followed by different letters were significantly different (P=0.05). 



116 



Table 4. Effect of Headline fungicide (9 oz/acre rate) applied on 36 inch band to entire 5-row 
strips of HoCP 96-540 plantcane in St. Martin Parish during 2009. 



Treatment 



Stalks/acre 
(xlOOO) 2 



Stalk weight 
(lbs.) 2 



Sugar/ton 
(lbs.) 



Tons cane per 
acre 2 



Sugar/acre 
(lbs.) 2 



Non-treated 


38.2 b 


2.51b 


199 


45.7 b 


9123 b 


Headline 


40.9 a 


2.67 a 


201 


49.1a 


9900 a 


1 application 












Headline 


41.5 a 


2.65 a 


199 


47.2 ab 


9293 b 


2 applications 













First fungicide application 4/30; second application 5/21. 
2 Means within columns followed by different letters were significantly different (P=0.05). 

Table 5. RSD testing summary for 2009. 



Source 



Location 



No. of 

fields 



No. of 

varieties 



No. of 

samples 



Louisiana growers 
Variety Release Program 
Helena SugarTech® 
Kleentek® 

Kleentek® 

Local Quarantine 
Research 



State-wide 
1°& 2° stations 
Foundation stock 

Foundation stock 

Other than 
foundation 

LSUAC 
LSUAC 



39 



50 



11 


875 


28 


821 


2 


28 


13 


36 


12 


764 


12 


40 


9 


225 



Totals 98 


87 


2789 


Table 6. Sugarcane yellow leaf virus testing summary for 2009. 


No. of 
Source Location fields 


No. of 
varieties 


No. of 
samples 



LDAF 

Helena SugarTech 3 

Kleentek® 

Kleentek® 

Local Quarantine 

Research 

Totals 



Seed Certification 
Foundation stock 

Foundation stock 

Other than 
foundation 

LSUAC 
LSUAC 



187 



36 



- 


6004 


2 


56 


6 


721 


60 


2752 


16 


69 


4 


411 



223 



88 



10013 



117 



EPTAM USE IN SUGARCANE: INCORPORATION METHODS, WEED CONTROL, 

AND CROP TOLERANCE 

J. Mite, J.L. Griffin, and J.M. Boudreaux 
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences 



In 2008 Eptam (EPTC) was labeled for use in fallow ground and research was initiated to 
investigate potential use of Eptam during the fallow period in a sugarcane production system. In 
sugarcane because row tops are not disturbed over the multi-year crop cycle, perennial weeds 
including johnsongrass, bermudagrass, and nutsedges can become problematic. During the 
fallow year, fields are prepared for replanting and weed control programs are implemented to 
reduce infestations of perennial weeds. Glyphosate is used extensively in fallowed sugarcane 
fields, but is not highly effective on bermudagrass and nutsedges. Research was conducted over 
three years to evaluate Eptam at 2, 3, 4, and 5 pints/A incorporated on pre-formed sugarcane 
beds using a Lilliston® rolling cultivator or a hipper/bedder. The rolling cultivator was equipped 
with six gangs per bed and was set to incorporate herbicide 2 to 3 inches deep. The 
hipper/bedder was equipped with a sweep centered on the row top that opened the bed followed 
by 3 -disk gangs that re-hipped in a single operation. All Eptam treatments were followed by 
Roundup OriginalMax (glyphosate) and weed control was compared to that of Roundup 
OriginalMax applied once or twice. 

Experiments were conducted in fields with moderate to heavy infestations of 
bermudagrass, johnsongrass, and nutsedge. For all weeds, differences in control among Eptam 
rates and between incorporation methods were generally not observed. For bermudagrass 30 
days after treatment (DAT), ground cover was 7 to 18% where Eptam was applied and was less 
than for the nontreated (29% ground cover) (Table 1). Two weeks later, bermudagrass ground 
cover for the Eptam treatments was 13 to 28% compared with 6% ground cover where Roundup 
OriginalMax was applied 14 d earlier. By 60 DAT, bermudagrass ground cover was equal and 
no more than 6% where Eptam was followed by Roundup OriginalMax and where only Roundup 
OriginalMax was applied twice. Johnsongrass was controlled 57 to 69% 30 DAT regardless of 
Eptam rate or application method (data not shown). By 45 DAT, johnsongrass control was equal 
(89 to 97%) where Eptam was followed by Roundup OriginalMax and where only Roundup 
OriginalMax was applied. Nutsedge (purple and yellow combined) was controlled 29 to 50% 30 
DAT regardless of Eptam rate or application method (Table 2). By 45 DAT, nutsedge control 
was equal (39 to 51%) where Eptam was followed by Roundup OriginalMax and where 
Roundup OriginalMax was applied twice (48%). 

In another study, crop response was evaluated when Eptam was applied at 3, 5, and 7 
pints/A and incorporated with a rolling cultivator immediately after sugarcane was planted in 
September. Sugarcane shoot population in late October and in February of the following year 
was not negatively affected by Eptam when compared to the Prowl plus Sencor standard applied 
to the soil surface at planting (data not shown). Eptam at 7 pt/A controlled sowthistle, white 
clover, Italian ryegrass, and winter annual bluegrass 0, 58, 65, and 61%, respectively, compared 
with 75, 100, 97, and 100%, respectively, for Prowl plus Sencor. 



118 



Although Eptam can be used safely in sugarcane, bermudagrass, johnsongrass, and 
nutsedge were not effectively controlled with Eptam applied alone during the fallow period. 
Perennial weed control was no greater when Roundup OriginalMax was applied following 
Eptam than when only Roundup OriginalMax was applied. Using a price of $45.10/gallon for 
Eptam, cost of 3.5 pt/A (lowest labeled rate) would be $19.73 (Table 3). The cost for one 
application of generic glyphosate at 32 oz/A ($1 1.00 per gallon) and of Roundup OriginalMax at 
23 oz/A ($36.00 per gallon) would be $2.75 and $6.47/A, respectively. This would bring the 
total weed control cost where Eptam is followed by glyphosate to $22.48 or $26.20/A, depending 
on formulation. This compares with $5.50 or $12.94/A where the glyphosate products are 
applied twice. Use of Eptam may reduce number of tillage operations for weed control, conserve 
soil moisture, and reduce fuel cost. The value of Eptam as a component of fallow weed control 
programs would be directly dependent on economics and grower preferences. 



119 





Oh 


oS 


3 
~d 


00 


d 


.3 


3 


'55 

3 


s 


d 


X 


O 


• i-H 


"f3 


s 


O 




fr 


03 


o 


ft 




e 




o 


>. 


o 


x 


c/3 


*d 


03 


U 


>S 


-t— > 


03 




s 


Qh 


, 


3 


03 


03 


d 


o3 


[5b 


s 


"C 


03 


o 


+3 




& 


Oh 


w 


3 


X 


T3 
d 


• i-H 


3 


£ 


q 




P^ 


P 


/ — v 


< q c ; 


Q 


^^ 




>> 


■a 


X) 


d 


•d 


S 

-4— » 




rt 


_o 


<L> 




H 


Jo 


S-H 


<fH 


<u 


T3 


<e 


CI 


03 


03 


CO 


S-H 


>% 


O 


03 


3 

_> 


O 


'■1— > 


vo 


3 


13 


o 


d 
c3 


00 

.53 






<* 


"o 


^ 


Vh 


o 


© 


CI 


d 


J-H 


o 


<D 


-t-> 


> 


<*> 


o 


*_h 


o 


rd 


T3 


hJ 


d 


03 


3 
o 


T3 


H 


S 


00 


03 


K 


S-h 


00 


0) 


03 


-d 


00 


-a 


03 


X 


3 


Oh 


<D 


Oh 


PQ 


X 


^ 




D 








X 




03 




H 







J-H 


00 


O 

4— > 


d 


03 


• i-H 


> 






o 


■4-^ 


P4 


3 

o 


S-h 


S-H 


0> 


<D 


Oh13 


OhT3 


ffi 


X 




!-H 


00 


o 

4-* 


d 


03 


j5 


> 






o 


H— > 


P< 


3 


(H 


S-h 


0) 


<D 


OhT3 


ft-d 


ffi 





•d 

X 
Tl- 



03 



> 

o 
o 

d 
d 

o 

S-i 

00 

CO 

to 
03 
s-h 
00 
03 

d 



CQ 






X) 
03 

^O 
CM 



d 

^o 

d 3 

U 

"ft 

O 

ST 

X 
03 



03 

d 

• i-H 

0d 



00 


s- 

o 


d 


03 




> 






o 


-4— • 


Ph* 


d 



J-H S-H 

<u 0) 
OhT3 
OhT3 

"X u 

Eh X 



C 
O 

\d oo 

^ i 

ft \3 
Oh ^ 

< 



Id 
P4 



T3 

o 

X 

CO 



X 



oo 



d 

T3 
O 

S-h 
Ph 



o 
m 



o3 



-d 
o 
X 



'd 
o 

X 

03 

>n 



-d 
m 



-d 
o 

X 
03 

m 



o 

X 
oo 



■8 

VO 
(N 






03 
OO 
(N 



-d 
o 

en 



o 

x 
oo 



x 



•d 



-d 



X 

1^ 



T3 

*° X 

OO ' tJ 

i-H m 



«e & 


« §^ 


«e §^ 


«e °r 


tarn 
und 


tarn 
und 


tarn 
und 


tarn 
und 


Oh P 


Oh q 


Oh q 


Oh q 


Eh Ch 


W Och 


W P^ 


U P-1 



T3 
o 

■a 



T3 
VO 



03 

o> 



^ H 


>^ H 


-H H 


HH H 


H H 


SB 


as 


S o 


S o 


&0 CO 

O O 


£ Ph 


£ Ph 


£ Ph 


Ph PH 


Ph Ph 


^ J 


^ H-l 


h-1 


J 


Eh J 



^N ^N ^_,N ^N NN 
Oh° Oh° ft° ft° °° 
fsim rn^ T+m in <**> mm 



o o o 

Oh O 

d ET 

-d T3 

d d 

d d 

o o 

& Pi 



3 » 

3 ^ 
C d 

X 03 

* ON 

o 
o 

o x> 
o d 



o 



ON 



r-d 



(N 



o3 

s§ 

-o <^ 
25 >» 

o 

CN § 

2p 

^ O 

§ °1 

d k 

o 






03 

d 

• i-H 

00 



'd 

d 
d 

S 

oo 

d 

• i-H 

ts 

)H 

H 

< 
Q 
o 

a> 

x 



ON 

o 
o 

CN 

CN 
CN 

3 • 
*—> 

-d 
c 

03 



IT) 

o 
o 

VI 

Ph 

< s 

«H !- 

<U ,<U 

• l-H M-H 

^H /d 

03 -o 

u si 

>% "d 

03 d 

•d 



in 



03 






oi)H 
d oo 

O 

Ph 

< -v 
66 q .a 



<u 



-d 
"d w 

O Oh 

&>> 

O 03 

d <u 

nH ^ 

T3 id 

d X 

03 p, 

Oh 



So 
CN m 

OO r- 
CN +2 



5 ^ S 

t^ol^ 
o &T d 



o 

d 



d 

<U 

X 

S>~> H— > 

3 ° 



00 



&S 
i| 

0) P«H 

D, 03 

d 

T3 -d 

S _op 

OT Oh 
S 'd 

B § 
Wp? 



CN __ 

Oh 

- d 
d -d 

° -d J 

Si i 1 

sis 

D .jh ^ 
o C < 

gOQ 

00 Oh,^ 
d d Q 

d 

O Ph 
Oh<N 



_2 a <u g -£3 y=j 



o 

• i-H 

d 
_op 

'lo 

-t-" 
O 

d 

.a s 

<D nd 

o? J^ 

-d g 

H x 
co - 1 - 1 

O >> 

Ph -° 

.in < +H 
12 &0 

o3 h 
d> 03 

o? S 

-d ^ 

en ^3 

H » 

oo .5 

O td 

Ph »- 

Eh -d 
— u 

"d o3 

Oh O 
&^ 

03 "* 



Table 2. Nutsedge control 30 and 45 days after treatment (DAT) with Eptam as affected by 
incorporation using a hipper/bedder and a Lilliston rolling cultivator and followed 
by (fb) Roundup Original Max as compared with Roundup Original Max applied 
alone. 1 









30 DAT 2 


45 DAT 2 


Treatments 


Rate 

Prod/A 


Application 
timing 


Hipper 
bedder 


Rolling 
cultivator 


Hipper 
bedder 


Rolling 
cultivator 




Product/A 

2pt 

23 oz 








ground cc 
51a 




Eptam fb 
Roundup OM 


PREI 
EPOST 


34 b 3 


35 ab 


42 ab 


Eptam fb 
Roundup OM 


3pt 
23 oz 


PREI 
EPOST 


36 ab 


29 b 


39 ab 


39 ab 


Eptam fb 
Roundup OM 


4pt 
23 oz 


PREI 
EPOST 


44 ab 


31b 


51a 


39 ab 


Eptam fb 
Roundup OM 


5pt 
23 oz 


PREI 
EPOST 


43 ab 


50 a 


44 ab 


41 ab 


Roundup OM fb 


23 oz 


EPOST 




0c 




48 ab 



Eptam applied preemergence and incorporated (PREI) on May 10, 2007; June 11, 2008; June 
11, 2008; and May 29, 2009 at St. Gabriel, LA. Roundup OriginalMax was applied early 
postemergence (EPOST) on July 9, 2007; July 14, 2008; and July 29, 2009 and late 
postemergence (LPOST) on July 24, 2007; July 28, 2008; and July 22, 2009. 

Roundup OriginalMax had not been applied at the 30 DAT rating. At the 45 DAT rating, 
Roundup OriginalMax was applied EPOST 15 days earlier. 
3 For each rating date means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05). 



Table 3. Cost comparisons for Eptam followed by generic glyphosate or Roundup OriginalMax 
weed control programs. 1 



Eptam Generic Roundup 

3.5 pt/A 32 oz/A 



Roundup OriginalMax 

23 oz/A 



Total cost/A 



$19.73 


+ 


$2.75 


or 


$6.47 







$2.75 + $2.75 


or 


$6.47 + $6.47 


$19.73 


+ 


$2.75 + $2.76 


or 


$6.47 + $6.48 



$22.48 or $26.20 

$5.50 or $12.94 

$25.23 or $32.67 



! Herbicide costs: Eptam @ $45.10/gallon; Generic glyphosate @ $1 1.00/gallon and; Roundup 
OriginalMax @ $36.00/gallon. Costs of the treatments will vary depending on herbicide cost. 



121 



INVESTIGATION OF FACTORS AFFECTING SUSPENSION OF METRIBUZIN DF 

IN SPRAY SOLUTION 

A.J. Orgeron, J.L. Griffin, and J.M. Boudreaux 
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences 



In recent years sugarcane producers have reported problems with the metribuzin DF (dry 
flowable) formulation related to mixing and clogging of main filter and nozzle screens. When a 
DF formulation is added to water in the spray tank, particles should completely wet, fall apart, 
and disperse in the spray solution. Any factor affecting ability of DF metribuzin to wet and 
disperse can result in formation of sediment which contributes to spray problems. Analysis of 
five water sources where problems have occurred showed ranges of 7.5 to 8.3 pH, 127 to 508 
alkalinity, and 46 to 120 hardness (Ca and Mg). Research was conducted in the laboratory to 
investigate various factors including water source, metribuzin product, agitation time, spray 
volume, and addition of surfactant or another herbicide that may contribute to the sediment 
problem. In all experiments, water sources from the Carmouche Farm in Assumption Parish 
where serious mixing problems have occurred (8.3 pH, 366 alkalinity, and 46 hardness) and from 
St. Gabriel municipal water (7.8 pH, 181 alkalinity, and 4 hardness) were used. Formulated 
metribuzin products were added to water to correspond to a field rate of 2 lbs product per acre 
applied in 10, 15, or 20 gallons per acre spray volume equivalent. Erlenmeyer flasks containing 
water and herbicide were agitated using a shaker for 15, 30, 60, or 90 minutes and spray solution 
was filtered through Whatman #1(11 micron) filter paper. Collected sediment was dried and 
weighed. 

For Sencor, sediment was equal using the Carmouche and St. Gabriel water sources but 
with Tricor, sediment was greater for the Carmouche water source (Table 1). In most cases 
sediment was greater for Sencor than for TriCor regardless of water source. Differences in water 
sources may be related to alkalinity and hard water. Sediment was reduced when agitation time 
increased and when spray volume equivalent increased. At a spray volume equivalent of 1 5 
gallons per acre, collected sediment was greater when Sencor or TriCor was used in combination 
with crop oil concentrate compared with nonionic surfactant or with no surfactant. For both the 
Carmouche and St. Gabriel water sources, sediment was greater when Sencor or TriCor was 
applied with Brash® (dicamba plus 2,4-D) compared with metribuzin applied alone. 

Laboratory research is underway to evaluate addition of buffer and ammonium sulfate to 
mitigate the negative effect of water pH, alkalinity, and hardness on suspension of metribuzin 
DF. Research will also evaluate the various factors using grower spray equipment. It appears 
from this research that both spray volume and agitation of DF metribuzin formulation are 
extremely critical. If possible, a slurry should be made in a pre-mixing tank with thorough 
agitation before spray solution is pumped into the tractor tank. 



122 



Table 1 . Percent metribuzin sediment as affected by water source, metribuzin formulation, 

agitation time, spray volume equivalent, and addition of surfactant or Brash herb icide. 

Water source/Metribuzin formulation (Experiment 1) / Sediment (%) 

Carmouche/Sencor 72.7 a 

St. Gabriel/Sencor 71.7a 

Carmouche/TriCor 69.3 b 

St. Gabriel/TriCor 63.6 c 

Water source/Metribuzin formulation (Experiment 2) / Sediment (%) 



Carmouche/Sencor 76.7 a 

St. Gabriel/Sencor 75.3 ab 

Carmouche/TriCor 73.0 b 

St. Gabriel/TriCor 67.6 c 



-Agitation time (minutes) / Sediment (%) 



15 71.3 a 

30 69.4 a 

60 69.3 ab 

90 67.3 b 



•Spray volume equivalent (GPA) / Sediment (%) 



10 76.8 a 

15 73.1b 

20 69.6 c 



-Metribuzin formulation/Surfactant) / Sediment (%) 



Sencor/crop oil concentrate 100 a 

TriCor/crop oil concentrate 97.5 b 

Sencor/nonionic surfactant 75.1c 

TriCor/nonionic surfactant 67.5 d 

Sencor/no surfactant 73.0 c 

TriCor/no surfactant 67.9 d 



-Water source/Brash addition) / Sediment (%) 



Carmouche + Brash 93.9 a 

Carmouche - Brash 82.8 b 

St. Gabriel + Brash 79.5 b 

St. Gabriel - Brash 74.6 c 



123 



NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN SUGARCANE AT PLANTING AND IN SPRING 

J.L. Griffin, L.M. Etheredge, Jr., and J.M. Boudreaux 
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences 



Field studies were conducted to evaluate control of purple and yellow nutsedge in 
sugarcane with herbicides applied preemergence at planting in August or September, 
postemergence in September or October (prior to the winter dormant period), or postemergence 
in March (after the winter dormant period). In the first study, herbicides were applied either 
immediately after sugarcane was planted or when nutsedge was 6 to 1 inches and sugarcane 
was 14 to 18 inches. By 10 weeks after treatment (WAT), nutsedge (purple and yellow 
combined) was controlled preemergence 31 to 43% with Spartan 4F at 8, 10, and 12 oz/A and 
Permit 75 DF at 2/3, 1, and 1 l A oz/A (Table 1). When herbicides were applied postemergence in 
October, Permit at 1 and 1 l A oz/A controlled nutsedge 74 and 79% 3 WAT, respectively, and 
control was greater than for all rates of Spartan. At one location, nutsedge control in April of the 
following year was 73 to 80% with Spartan at 1 2 oz/A and Permit at 2/3, 1 , and 1 l A oz/A applied 
postemeergence in October of the previous year. 

In a second study, herbicides were applied postemergence 35 days after planting in 
September when nutsedge was 4 to 6 inches and sugarcane was 8 to 1 inches. Nutsedge control 
6 WAT with Permit applied alone at 1 or 1 l A oz/A or with 2,4-D or Yukon applied at 8 or 12 
oz/A was equivalent and averaged 77% (Table 2). Control 6 WAT with Envoke alone at 0.2 and 
0.3 oz/A or with 2,4-D averaged 68%. In March of the following year when sugarcane emerged 
after the winter dormant period, nutsedge control with Permit applied alone or with 2,4-D or 
Yukon at one location averaged 74% compared with an average of 44% for the Envoke 
treatments. Differences in nutsedge control were not reflected in higher early season sugarcane 
shoot population or in late season stalk height and population. 

In a third study, Permit and Envoke treatments were applied postemergence in March 
after sugarcane (10 to 12 inches) and nutsedge (2 to 4 inches) had emerged from the winter 
dormant period. At 5 WAT nutsedge control averaged 79% for Permit at 1 and 1 l A oz/A and for 
Envoke at 0.3 oz/A (data not shown). Sugarcane height in May and July and stalk population in 
July where nutsedge was controlled as much as 79% were no greater than for the nontreated. In 
regard to sugarcane injury, significant foliar discoloration and stunting were observed 2 to 3 
WAT where Spartan or Envoke was applied postemergence but sugarcane growth later in the 
growing season was not affected. Permit did not injure sugarcane. 

Nutsedge control programs in sugarcane should be first implemented during the fallow 
period using glyphosate programs to help reduce the nutsedge tuber population and to prevent 
weeds from removing moisture from the seedbeds and causing problems in opening of rows and 
in covering of planted sugarcane. Multiple applications of glyphosate during the fallow period 
have not been effective in controlling nutsedge. Standard herbicides used in sugarcane and 
applied to the soil at planting are mostly ineffective on nutsedge. In this study, Spartan and 
Permit applied preemergence controlled nutsedge no more than 43% 10 WAT and control was 
no greater than for the hexazinone plus diuron standard. 

124 



Other control alternatives for nutsedge would be to apply herbicide in the fall after 
nutsedge and sugarcane have emerged after planting or to wait until the following spring after 
nutsedge and sugarcane emerge from the winter dormant period. When Spartan and Permit were 
applied postemergence in the fall to 6 inch nutsedge, control the following April was around 
60% for Spartan and around 80% for Permit, greater than when the herbicides were applied 
preemergence at planting (around 50%> control). Envoke applied postemergence in the fall 
controlled nutsedge around 68% 6 WAT compared with around 76% for Permit. By March of 
the following year nutsedge control with Permit had not changed appreciably compared with 6 
WAT, but control with Envoke had decreased to around 44%. 

A reduction in the ability of nutsedge to reestablish a significant underground tuber 
population in the fall will allow sugarcane to establish a stable root system. This will help 
sustain sugarcane plants through the wet and cool winter dormant period and will promote 
development of buds that will affect shoot emergence in the spring. When Permit and Envoke 
were applied in the spring, nutsedge control was around 80%). 2,4-D ester controlled nutsedge no 
more than 36%. Even though differences in control were observed, sugarcane emerging from the 
winter dormant period was able to compete with nutsedge and sugarcane growth was not 
affected. 



125 



x 



S-H 

o 

00 
P 

00 



DO 

d 
d 

03 



£3 
03 
o 
s- I 
es 

GO 

00 

<u 
o 

d 
03 

00 



<L> 

03 



■n 


0) 

o 


^ 


d 


'H 5 


03 


• T-H 


00 


d 


S-I 

03 

a 


o 


03 


s- 


+- • 


o3 


oo 


00 


O 


P 


ft 


GO 





4±S m 



T3 

Oh 
03 
00 

03 

'3 

n 

03 
00 

d 
>> o 

s-i +-» 

•d'O 

"- d 
03 .d 

S o> 
^_ o 

O CI 

ft -a 

d d 

O 03 

<u u 
00 -g 

^ s 

Z oo 



03 

H 



o 

!- 
-4— > 

d 
o 
03 

03 
00 
T3 
03 
00 
-4— > 

d 



03 



o 

d 
03 

'— 

03 



ft 



dJ 



03 o3 o3 

On 00 1— 1 
1-1 — 1 <N 



x x x 
000 



o 



03 03 -§ 03 



X 7j " " 03 - 

JQ 00 t^ 00 £j t> 

^ IT) l 



00 

o 



03 






03 
O 



03 

-4-j 
03 

Oh 



03 
03 

H 



t+— 1 03 

03 T3 H-H 

o in i- 



03 

in 



o 

X 



03 

m 
en 



X 

03 



03 



ff> r*\ '— ' 



OO 



m 



X X 
03 03 

r~~ 00 



T3 
C3 00 

O O 



ON 






o 



-9 2 

a x 

rt- in 

^O >n 



03 o 

CM "H 
t-- in 



N N N . . N 
g O O N O X 



O *-• ^ <N »-h 

S-h 

Oh 




03 £ 

il 

•— s 03 

GO d 
+h 03 
03 XI 

03 

dX> 
03 03 

ft -5 
00 

03 



03 

d 

03 
03 

s- 
03 
00 

d 
1/3 

S-c 

03 

<s 

a 



03 

03 
Oh 
00 

03 

o 
o 

(N 
fN 

d 

03 



T3 

03 

03 

Vi 

-t-> 

d 

03 

£1 

03 
03 

'3 



X 


— > 

Q 


03 




X 


03 

X 


03 


■4— > 


d 


03 


03 


03 


00 


X 



03 
X 

.2h o 

Oh g 

ft .2 

03 -t—i 

1 & 

-W 03 



03 "d! 
03 .T5 

J? ° 

Oh O 

d ■ — ' 
o 



03 OS 

-a — 1 



03 

X 

-t- > 

o 
o 

in 



•— 

03 
X 



03 

-t- > 
C/3 
O 

Oh 

t/3 
03 
X 

o 

_d 

00 



03 
X 

o 
O 

0> 

-a 

03 

s 

03 O 



03 



% 

ft 52 
03 d 

GO .O 



S 2 

co X 

r~- Oh 

<n ft 

+H <S 

5P d 

d 03 

< 8? 

03 03 

2 03 

03 O 

*-| Oh 
03 



03 
H 
03 

d 
cr 

to «« 



03 

X 



00 
00 
O 

Sh 
03 

03 

> 03 
■M 00 

ft a 

03 S-i 
C3 03 

03 03 

03 d 
03 03 

8 d 

"d 03 



03 

1 

03 
H 

-t-> 

03 
O 

d 

03 
00 

O 03 

X °° 
^ ° 
fe ft 

o jj 

03 T3 

o d 

03 03 

2 d 

03 i> 

«+H 00 

^M !h 

■ r3 >» 03 

8 § & 

>S O H 

< s «s 

.n 00 03 

w - o3 



03 



"d (ii +- '•»=! 



T oj 

00 a 

03 

O «+H 

H 03 

00 w 

03 

53 11 
00 



S-i 

03 
ft 

X 

03 



03 

X 

03 

d 



x^o 



^0 "TJ 

d g 
o .S o 

•rt +-• -d 



»n 
(N 



03 


03 


^O 





03 
ft 


ft 
00 
03 


03 

s- 
03 


-1— 1 

03 

-4-> 


& 


s- 


£ 


d 

03 


03 


< 


03 




O 


hJ 


00 


,03 


d 


T3 


<+H 


03 
00 

J-H 

03 

£ 

03 


■4— > 

00 

03 
03 

03 
-t-> 


03 
00 

d 

d 
-2 


S-H 

d 
00 



'2 




Oh 



& d 
P o 
ft d 



03 

d 

03 

o 

o3 

00 

d 
d M 

03 T3 

03 d 

X ^ 
-4— > ^_^ 

00 03 

o x 
o "03 

03 00 
00 ° 

•a * 

la -2 

03 X 
^^ 

03 
• 4-h 03 

03 d 

00 ft 
03 ^^ 

>> oo 

<! ^ 

O 03 

-4-i 00 

CN d 

"d »-" 

o3 o 

— I «+H 

a 

2 3 
ft Q 



« 2 g 

O K 5 

^ 03 § 

IS 03 03 

p" 03 jh 

03 C § 

X -2 w 

x^ d 2 

d 9 ° 

d 2 ^ 

03 XI Ji 

00 +- ft 

2 >>< 

ft-" H 

*i 03 ^^ 

^d.2 q §3 



5Cn <« 

•x a 

ea d 

^H I 1 

~H O 

O 03 



03 

a 

"o 

d 

o 

03 



03 

H H M 

■§ •S'd 

o X u 

O -±3 00 

O d v 
03 ^ 5 

00 M Z 

03 d m 

i2 So 

a © 



m S ft 

o u h 
03 



§ £ S3 Xh 

2 o « .7- 



CN X oo 

03 rj 

. 2 § 

Qt, r~ 03 

<^ H a 






r> 



T3 
CD 

1 

cd 

c 
c 

CD 

£ 

CD 
-t-> 
Oh 
CD 

GO 



CD 
O 

s 

cd 

S-l 

B 

CD 

-t-> 
on 
O 
&, 

.2 

"&, 
Ph 
cd 
t« 

cd 

T3 



■e 

00 

c 

I 

3 



d 
cd 
o 

S-c 

Cd 

00 



O 
H 

■4— > 

d 
o 
o~ . 

cd 2 
to 5 

CD ^J 

^ cd 
•g oo 

CN 

42 
cd 

H 



CD 

d 

cd 
o 

H 

Cd 
00 

GO 



d 
o 

II 

43 3 
co eM 
o 

CM 



43 <-> 

o so 



rt 


H 


o 

H 


< 


d 

o 


£ 


o 


so 


<u 




00 




T3 


H 


t/3 


< 


B" 


£ 


£ 


-* 




H 




< 




£ 






SO 

H 
< 



< 

CN 



•g SO 

s-h O 
Cd O 



jd 


Cd 


a 


Cd 


Cd 


cd 


cd 


cd 


O 


»—i 


o 


<* 


oo 


OS 


"* 


l-H 



cd cd 
_. _ Os rn 

SoscN^OsOsOSOCNSO 



cdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcd 
OOOOO^^OO 



X) X) 40 X) X> 
m CN *— ' ^J - ^t 



cd cd cd q 
co rt m 



^>£ 



o cd cd cd cd 



•° -^ O r-H ^H 






(N 



CD 
td 



cd 

CD 

S-H 



cd 



■a 



cd X) 



P" t< ^ 



40 

cd 



O CD CD 



oo oo ,__ m in in 



CD 

■s 

in 
t-- 



cd cd 

oo so 
i> r-- 



SO 



CD 

■a 

in 



■<* rr TI- 



TS "^ 2 

^ 3 O 4^ 



CD 



r- vo 



oo ^ o 

SO I> 



cd 



^ Cd Cd 



cd 
O 



m 



o 

40 



oo oo oo oo t> 



CD 

40 

cd 



•§ .fS- 



p ^t- 



rn 



Os 
en 



4^ o X) 43 

cd *" cd cd cd 



m 



OS ^h 



m 



m o 



n- ^f 



o 

O 

Sh 

Oh 



N 
O 




N 
O 


. , IS )g „ N 


N 


SO 
N CN 


N O OJ N g 

o „ o w 


O 


5 + 


^ ^ + oo £2 


(N 


2 N 


*■* n r 1 


O 


O g 


o 




CN 


,-H 




O 


Q 
i 




Q 
i 


ri- 




CN 


Q Q 




+ 


ft, 


PL, Ph 


pL, fe pL, rr rr 

Q Q Q ^ ^ 


QQQ 
in in in 


in »n in t~- t^» 


r-~ 


r- t> 


t-^ t^- r- ^o so 


CD 


CD CD 


+j +j +j g g 


^ 


44 44 


'3 '3 "S o o 

CD CD CD J 3 J 3 


O 
> 

d 


o o 
> > 

d d 


Dh PLh Oh >-> >h pq 


w w 



CD 

td 

CD 

c 

o 



S « 



cd 



CN 



BILLET PLANTING RESEARCH 

J. W. Hoy and C. F. Savario 
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology 



Research continued to develop methods to maximize the chances of success with billet 
(stalk section) planting. During 2009, results were obtained from two field experiments 
conducted at the Sugar Research Station at St. Gabriel comparing stubble crop yields obtained 
from billet and whole stalk plantings of commercial and experimental varieties. In addition, the 
potential for Syngenta chemical treatments to improve stand establishment and yield in billet 
plantings was evaluated. 

An experiment to compare yields obtained from billet and whole stalk plantings of 
commercial and experimental varieties was not planted in 2008 to be evaluated in plantcane 
during 2009 due to Hurricane Gustav damage to seedcane sources. Yields were determined and 
compared for first stubble and second stubble crops of experiments established in previous years. 
The yield differences detected in plantcane between billet and whole stalk plantings for four of 
eight varieties during 2008 (Table 1 ) were no longer significant in first stubble. Sizeable 
numerical differences were still found for some varieties, but variability in the data resulted in a 
failure to detect significant differences. The yields of billet and whole stalk plantings in the 
experiment in second stubble during 2009 were similar within all varieties (Table 2). Yields in 
plantcane for this experiment were lower in billet plantings for six of eight varieties. The 
significant differences decreased to one variety in first stubble and then none in second stubble. 
The pattern, in which the magnitude of differences between billet and whole stalk planting yields 
decreases in stubble crops, has been observed in previous field experiments. However, the 
difference between yields over the entire crop cycle can be substantial when the cycle starts with 
a significantly lower yield in the billet planting. 

Chemical treatments being developed by Syngenta for a single-node planting system in 
Brazil were evaluated to determine whether they could improve billet planting stand 
establishment and plantcane yield in Louisiana. Billets of Ho 95-988 and HoCP 96-540 with 3-4 
buds per billet were dipped in a combination of multiple fungicides, a combination of insecticide 
and nematicide, all chemicals combined, or left un-treated. Billets of each variety were planted in 
a randomized complete block design with four replications. Primary shoot populations were 
counted after emergence during the fall, and spring shoot populations were counted following 
winter. Millable stalk counts were determined during August, and the other yield components 
were determined at harvest. 

The fungicide mixture increased primary shoot populations and spring shoot population 
for both varieties, and the combination of all chemicals further increase stand establishment in 
HoCP 96-540 (Table 3). Millable stalk population was only increased by the total combination 
treatment in HoCP 96-540. Yield increases in cane tonnage and sugar per acre resulting from 
chemical treatments were detected for HoCP 96-540 (Table 4) with the highest yields in the 
treatment with all chemicals combined. 



128 



Table 1. Comparison of yield components for billet and whole stalk plantings for eight varieties 
in 2008 plantcane and 2009 first stubble. 



Plantcane 



First stubble 







Tons cane 


Sugar/acre 


Tons cane 


Sugar/acre 


Variety 


Treatment 


per acre y 


(lbs.) y 


per acre y 


(lbs.) y 


Ho 95-988 


Billet 


24.8 b 


5624 b 


32.0 


5826 




Whole 


33.5 a 


7465 a 


33.5 


6196 


HoCP 96-540 


Billet 


28.4 


6460 


31.2 


5932 




Whole 


38.3 


8047 


36.0 


6523 


L 97-128 


Billet 


25.2 b 


5271b 


28.2 


5421 




Whole 


33.9 a 


7482 a 


33.5 


6460 


L 99-226 


Billet 


25.9 b 


5376 b 


31.8 


5901 




Whole 


41.0 a 


8817 a 


36.8 


7040 


L 99-233 


Billet 


24.3 b 


5333 b 


31.8 


5914 




Whole 


32.2 a 


7192 a 


31.0 


6072 


HoCP 00-950 


Billet 


27.6 


6221 


34.0 


6481 




Whole 


33.8 


7719 


39.0 


7539 


L 01-283 


Billet 


36.2 


7816 


41.5 


7754 




Whole 


36.2 


7689 


41.5 


7893 


L 01-299 


Billet 


36.7 


7509 


43.8 


7880 




Whole 


38.2 


7706 


49.2 


9448 



y Values of different yield components for billet and whole stalk comparisons within a variety 
followed by different letters were significantly different (P=0.05). 



129 



Table 2. Comparison of plantcane yield components for billet and whole stalk plantings of four 
varieties in 2007 plantcane, 2008 first stubble, and 2009 second stubble. 





Billet vs. 


Plantcane 




First stubble 


Second stubble 




Tons per 


Sucrose 


Tons per 


Sucrose 


Tons per 


Sucrose 


Variety 


whole 


acre y 


(lbs/acre) y 


acre y 


(lbs/acre) 


acre 


(lbs/acre) 


LCP85-384 


Billet 


29.0 b 


5227 


28.4 


6030 


29.5 


5375 




Whole 


37.5 a 


6231 


28.7 


6025 


31.5 


5604 


Ho95-988 


Billet 


32.7 b 


6094 b 


31.0 


6584 


28.0 


5395 




Whole 


46.7 a 


8429 a 


33.1 


7274 


32.5 


6017 


HoCP96-540 


Billet 


38.8 b 


9259 


38.1 


8040 


35.5 


6441 




Whole 


53.8 a 


9880 


43.4 


9093 


38.8 


7118 


L97-128 


Billet 


33.6 b 


5941b 


29.8 


6040 


29.5 


5361 




Whole 


48.9 a 


8573 a 


34.6 


7153 


30.8 


5440 


L99-226 


Billet 


41.0b 


7918 b 


33.1b 


7323 


28.2 


5207 




Whole 


50.6 a 


9650 a 


36.6 a 


7838 


28.8 


5234 


L99-233 


Billet 


42.7 


7657 b 


27.6 


5937 


29.0 


5409 




Whole 


46.7 


8729 a 


29.1 


6042 


29.5 


5384 


L01-283 


Billet 


48.7 


9241 


35.1 


7484 


36.8 


6623 




Whole 


49.5 


9608 


36.2 


7681 


40.5 


7752 


L0 1-299 


Billet 


46.9 


8576 


41.2 


8327 


47.5 


8559 




Whole 


45.4 


8599 


42.1 


8730 


44.5 


8201 



y Values of different yield components for billet 
followed by different letters were significantly 



and whole stalk comparisons within a variety 
different (P=0.05). 



Table 3. Effect of Syngenta chemical treatments on Fall and Spring stand establishment and 
millable stalks produced in plantcane by two varieties, Ho 95-988 and HoCP 96-540 
during 2009. 



Variety and treatment 


Fall shoots/acre 


Spring shoots/acre 


Millable stalks/acre 




(xl000) y 


(xl000) y 


(xl000) y 


Ho 95-988 








Non-treated 


24.7 b 


33.6 b 


42.2 


Fungicide 


34.5 a 


44.4 a 


44.3 


Insecticide/nematicide 


28.5 b 


40.7 ab 


42.7 


Combination 


29.8 ab 


38.2 ab 


43.2 


HoCP 96-540 








Non-treated 


13.9 c 


22.4 c 


30.0 b 


Fungicide 


21.8b 


32.2 b 


34.3 ab 


Insecticide/nematicide 


16.5 c 


25.5 c 


33.6 b 


Combination 


25.8 a 


46.7 a 


38.5 a 



y Values for comparisons within a variety and column followed by different letters were 
significantly different CP=0.05). 



130 



Table 4. Effect of Syngenta chemical treatments on yield components for two varieties, 
Ho 95-988 and HoCP 96-540, in plantcane during 2009. 



Variety and treatment 


Stalk weight 


Sugar/ton cane 


Tons 


Sugar/acre 




(lbs.) 


(lbs.) 


cane/acre y 


(lbs.) y 


Ho 95-988 










Non-treated 


2.5 


193 


48.2 


9399 


Fungicide 


2.5 


196 


54.2 


10684 


Insecticide/nematicide 


2.4 


200 


57.0 


11459 


Combination 


2.4 


198 


54.2 


10787 


HoCP 96-540 










Non-treated 


3.1 


187 


41.8 c 


7877 c 


Fungicide 


2.7 


185 


51.8b 


9936 b 


Insecticide/nematicide 


2.9 


186 


53.5 b 


9564 be 


Combination 


2.9 


194 


63.0 a 


12205 a 



y Values for comparisons within a variety and column followed by different letters were 
significantly different (P=0.05). 



131 



LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF POST-HARVEST RESIDUE MANAGEMENT 

H.P. "Sonny" Viator and Greg Williams 
Iberia Research Station 



Summary: 

Pre-harvest burning resulted in significantly higher sugar per acre yield than the full- 
retention and raked-to-the-middle residue management treatments. Over three production cycles, 
the advantage to pre-harvest burning of the residue totaled over 8,000 lb of sugar per acre, which 
is tantamount to an extra crop. Plantcane crops of cycle's no. two and three were high yielding, 
indicating that the debilitating effects of residue retention did not carry over to subsequent 
production cycles. 

Objectives and Methods: 

A study was initiated in 1 997 to evaluate the long-term effects of harvest residue 
management on sugarcane. Objectives were to measure the benefits and consequences of 
combine-generated residue retention on subsequent crops in the production cycle. Residue 
management treatments included 1 ) pre-harvest burning, 2) post-harvest raking residue to the 
middles and 3) full retention of the residue. Treatments were established in the first stubble crop 
of production cycle number one in 1998 and maintained in place for the duration of three 
production cycles. When the study began many fields were burned prior to combining, a practice 
that is less frequently used today. 

Results: 

Trash blanket observations : The amount of trash blanket remaining after harvest 
averaged 2.63 and 4.50 tons of dry matter/acre, respectively, for the pre-harvest burned and non- 
burned treatments. Even though the trash blanket after burning was only approximately half of 
that of the non-burned plots, sufficient trash may have remained to adversely affect subsequent 
crops to some extent. Although the higher yielding plantcane and first stubble crops tended to 
generate the greatest amount of residue, exceptions occurred and trash amount was not 
predictable. Retention of the trash blanket, especially for the plots with residue raked to the 
furrow bottoms, resulted in difficulties for tillage operations and fertilizer applications in years 
when the residue was either or both wet and plentiful. Immobilization of plant nutrients by the 
trash blanket can occur but plant tissue samples revealed comparable levels of N and P among 
the three treatments, which indicated that nutrient uptake did not appear to be compromised by 
the presence of the trash blanket. Additional analyses to detect nutrient recycling are scheduled 
to be conducted this year to determine changes in soil organic matter and nutrient content of the 
soil and plant. 

Effects of trash blanket retention on growth and yield : While retention of the trash 
blanket did not diminish yield in all seasons, averaged over all the stubble crops in the three 
cycles pre-harvest burning resulted in higher sugar yields than both the raked-residue and the 
retained- residue management approaches (table 1). Difference in sugar yield for the other 

132 



treatment comparison was not significant. It must be acknowledged, however, that differences in 
measured yield between the burned and non-burned treatments must factor in the direct effects of 
burning prior to harvesting as well as the effects of the retained residue. 



Table 1. Influence of Retained Residue on the Sugar Yields (lb/ac) for Three 
Consecutive Production Cycles 




Residue Management Treatments 


Cycle No. 1 


Pre-harvest Burned 


Raked to Middles 


Retained 


First Stubble 


8138 


8439 j 


7421 


Second Stubble 


8596 


7623 


7599 


Third Stubble 


7247 


7865 


6469 


Cycle No. 2 








Plantcane 


7347 


7018 


6451 


First Stubble 


6649 


4958 


4921 


Second Stubble 


5791 


4595 


4807 


Cycle No. 3 








Plantcane 


11695 


11722 


12200 


First Stubble 


7493 


6734 


6944 


Second Stubble 


7826 


6725 


6172 


Third Stubble 


6925 


6354 


6107 


Average with Plant 
Cane 


7771 a 1 


7203 b 


6908 b 


Average without 
Plant Cane 


7333 a 1 


6662 b 


6305 b 



1 = means in rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P = 0.10) 

The adverse effects of residue retention appeared to be cumulative within cycles, with the 
most debilitating effects occurring in the older stubble crops. The chart below graphically shows 
that, by the last stubble crop in each of the three cycles, the stalk population for the cane with the 
retained trash blanket possessed the lowest number of stalks. 



133 



65000 



s P 55000 




•Burned 

■Removed 

•Retained 



40000 



35000 



S> 



N" 






*> 









^ 



$> 






6 n$> 



5p 



Stalk Population for Three Production Cycles 



The magnitude of the yield advantage of burning over retaining the residue is noteworthy 
because the cumulative total is tantamount to getting an extra crop (over 8,000 pounds of sugar 
per acre when totaled over the three production cycles). The good news about the trash blanket 
is that the negative effects of retaining it did not carryover through the fallow period to 
subsequent production cycles, as indicated by the relatively high yields of the plantcane crops 
(note the high cycle 3 plantcane yield for the retained residue in table 1). 



Research partially supported by a grant from the American Sugar Cane League. 



134 



SOIL FERTILITY RESEARCH IN SUGARCANE 

Brenda S. Tubafia 1 , Sonny Viator 2 , Jim Wang 1 , Allen Arceneaux 1 and Jasper Teboh 1 

School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences 

Iberia Research Station 

In Cooperation with 
Sugar Research Station 

Summary 

Several fertility trials were conducted in 2009 to evaluate the performance of recent cane 
varieties as affected by nitrogen (N), fertilizer adjuvants, and different sources and rates of 
potassium (K). Nitrogen applied at a rate of 80 lbs N ac" 1 significantly increased cane and sugar 
yield of 2 nd stubble cane varieties HoCP96-540, L99-226 and LCP85-384. Compared with the 
check plot (0 K2O plot), there were only slight increases in both cane and sugar yield when K 
was supplied at rates of 120 lbs ac" 1 as sulfate of potash (SOP) and 60 lbs ac" 1 as muriate of 
potash (MOP). Our results showed that while one-time application of fertilizer adjuvant at 
planting in combination with spring application of adjuvant + PGR had numerically higher cane 
and sugar yields compared with the control, these differences were not significant. Application 
of adjuvants on top of regular fertilization did not improve sugarcane yield. A contrast analysis 
confirmed that differences in sugarcane yield were attributed to N application. 

Objectives 

This research was designed to provide information on soil fertility management in an 
effort to help growers produce maximum economic yields and increase profitability in sugarcane 
production. This annual progress report is presented to provide the latest available data on certain 
practices and not as final recommendation for growers to use all of these practices. 
Recommendations are based on several years of research data. 

Results 

Effect of Nitrogen on Sugarcane Yield 

An experiment was conducted to determine the effect of spring-applied N fertilizer on the 
yield and yield components of 2 nd stubble-cane of three cane varieties planted on a Commerce 
silt loam (Table 1). The responses of varieties LCP85-384, HoCP96-540 and L99-226 with 
different N rates (0, 40, 80, and 120 lbs N ac" 1 ) were evaluated. Sugarcane variety HoCP96-540 
obtained the highest cane (35 tons ac" 1 ) and sugar (7196 lbs ac" 1 ) yield among the varieties tested. 
Across all varieties, N significantly increases both cane and sugar yield. Nitrogen applied at the 
rate of 80 lbs ac" 1 maximized both cane and sugar yield. No further increases in cane and sugar 
yield were observed at application rate of 120 lbs N ac" 1 . 



135 



Response of Sugarcane to Different Sources and Rates of Potassium 

This study was established on a silty clay soil that was tested low to medium for K and 
high for sulfur (S). Sugarcane variety HoCP96-540 was planted in September 2008. Results of 
the first year trial (plantcane) are summarized in Table 2. There were only slight increases (not 
significant, P<0.05) in both cane and sugar yield when K was supplied at rates of 120 lbs ac" 1 as 
SOP and 60 lbs ac" 1 as MOP. Application rate at 240 lbs K2O ac" 1 tended to decrease both cane 
and sugar yield. Supplying K2O as MOP tended to increase sugar yield by about 500 lbs ac" 1 
when compared with SOP as K2O source. On the other hand, cane yields of both MOP and SOP 
treated plots were very similar (39 vs. 41 ton ac" 1 ). There is an increasing trend of Mehlich-3 
extractable K with increasing rates of K2O as SOP however this was not observed in MOP. 

Fertilizer Adjuvant Effects on Sugarcane Yield 

Two trials were conducted in 2009 to investigate the effect of AminoGrow products as 
fertilizer adjuvants on sugarcane yield. The effect of N and Trimat (Table 3) on sugarcane yield 
and yield components was consistent across varieties. There were significant differences when 
evaluating the overall effect of the treatments for cane and sugar yields. However, a contrast 
analysis confirmed that these differences were attributed to N application. At 80 lbs N ac" 1 , with 
and without Trimat application, cane and sugar yields were the same across varieties. The 
benefit of Trimat and PGR+ application to sugarcane was also tested (Table 4). There was no 
interaction between variety and treatment indicating that both varieties had consistent response to 
application of Trimat and PGR+. Our results showed that while the one-time application of 
Trimat at planting in combination with spring application of Trimat and PGR+ had numerically 
higher cane and sugar yields compared with the control, these differences were not significant. 
This could be attributed to large variation that existed among replications within each of the 
treatments. The one-time, fall application of Trimat at planting but without spring amendments 
of these adjuvants obtained similar yields to plots that received Trimat and PGR+ in spring. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to express appreciation for the financial support of AminoGrow USA, Great 
Salt Lake Minerals, and Board of Regents. 



136 



Table 1. Effect of nitrogen on the second stubble yield of three cane varieties planted on a 
Commerce silt loam at the Sugar Research Station, St. Gabriel, LA, 2009. 



Treatment 


Population 


TRS 


Purity 


Cane Yield 


Sugar 




1000 ac" 1 


Lbs ton" 1 


% 


ton ac" 1 


Yield 
lb ac" 1 


Variety 












L99-226 


26.0 


207 


80.7 


28.4 


5865 


LCP85-384 


34.3 


193 


80.8 


29.0 


5562 


HoCP96-540 


34.0 


205 


81.9 


35.0 


7196 


Pr>F 


0.0001 


0.0012 


0.537 


<0.0001 


<0.0001 


Nitrogen Rate, lb/ac 















21 A 


199 


81.0 


23.7 


4722 


40 


31.0 


208 


81.9 


31.2 


6454 


80 


33.0 


201 


80.8 


33.8 


6817 


120 


34.6 


198 


80.1 


34.4 


6837 


Pr>F 


0.0147 


0.1617 


0.0385 


<0.0001 


<0.0001 



Table 2. Yield and yield components of sugarcane as affected by source and rate of potassium. 
Mehlich-3 Extractable potassium of soil samples collected after harvest is also reported. 



Source Potash Rate Soil K Population TRS Purity Cane Sugar Yield 

d 

-i 



lbsK 2 Oac" 1 1000 ac" 1 lbs ton" 1 % Yield lb ac" 1 



tonac 



(Check 1) 225 27.6 201 83 39 7755 



- 


(Check 

2f) 
60 


223 


32.1 


194 


82 


39 


7542 


SOP 


225 


30.6 


199 


83 


38 


7638 


SOP 


120 


236 


34.5 


192 


81 


40 


7807 


SOP 


240 


248 


33.0 


195 


82 


37 


7243 


MOP 


60 


228 


30.0 


301 


82 


42 


8414 


MOP 


120 


232 


30.8 


203 


83 


38 


7701 


MOP 


240 


218 


33.4 


195 


82 


41 


7977 


MOPf 


60 


247 


34.4 


195 


81 


41 


8093 


MOPf 


120 


227 


32.8 


194 


80 


40 


7844 


MOPf 


240 


236 


35.5 


188 


81 


42 


7822 



Pr>F ns ns ns ns ns ns 



f applied with 20 lbs S ac" 1 
SOP: Sulfate of Potash, 0-0-50 
MOP: Muriate of Potash , 0-0-60 
ns - not significant 



137 



Table 3. Effect of fertilizer adjuvant and nitrogen on the second stubble yield of three cane 
varieties on a Commerce silt loam, Sugar Research Station, St. Gabriel, LA, 2009. 



Treatment 




Population 


TRS 


Purity 


Cane 


Sugar 






1000 ac" 1 


lbs ton" 1 


% 


Yield 
ton ac" 1 


Yield 
lb ac" 1 


Variety 
















L99-226 


2486 


208 


81 


25.0 b 


5179 




L99-233 


2837 


213 


82 


24.1b 


5146 




HoCP96-540 


2867 


202 


81 


27.4 a 


5500 




Pr>F 


ns 


ns 


ns 


* 


ns 


TrtNo. 














1 


lb N/ac 


2256 d 


210 


81.8 


20.2 c 


4236 c 


2 


801bsN/ac 


2977 ab 


200 


80.1 


31.3 a 


6295 a 


3 


lb N/ac + Trimat 


2620 be 


210 


81.6 


19.8 c 


4136 c 


4 


40 lbs N/ac + 
Trimat 


2679 b 


210 


81.6 


25.9 b 


5392 b 


5 


80 lbs N/ac + 
Trimat 


3119a 


207 


81.0 


30.3 a 


6306 a 




Pr>F 


* 


ns 


ns 


*** 


*** 



ns - not significant, * and ***, significant at 95% and 99.9% level of confidence 



Table 4. Effect of fertilizer adjuvant on the first stubble yield of two cane varieties on a 
Cancienne silty clay loam, Sugar Research Station, St. Gabriel, LA, 2009. 



Treatment 




Population 
1000 ac" 1 


TRS 
lbs ton" 1 


Purity 
% 


Cane Yield 
ton ac" 1 


Sugar 
Yield 
lb ac" 1 


Variety 


L99-226 
HoCP96-540 


2769 b 
3430 a 


208 
202 


81.7 
81.5 


32.0 b 
37.8 a 


6717 
7656 




Pr>F 


*** 


ns 


ns 


** 


ns 



Trt No. Fall TRT - Spring 

TRT 

1 Control - Control 3178 199 81.6 32.4 6466 

2 T&PGR-T,PGR ^ 208 81.5 ^ jm 
& F 

3 T-T,PGR&F 3162 204 81.5 36.0 7383 

_4 T - Control 3161 208 81.7 36,2 7588 

Pr>F ns ns ns ns ns_ 

ns - not significant, ** and ***, significant at 99% and 99.9% level of confidence 

T - Trimat 

PGR - Growth Regulator 

F - Foliar NPK 



138 



EFFICACY OF NUTRI-PHITE™ AS A PHOTOSYNTHESIS REGULATOR IN 

SUGARCANE 

H.P. "Sonny" Viator and Greg Williams 
Iberia Research Station 



Summary: 

Nutri-Phite™, a photosynthesis regulator, was foliar applied at both a half gallon/acre 
rate and at a full gallon/acre rate (split applied a month apart). Sugar and cane yield responses 
were not significant. While higher N use efficiency has been measured in other crops, it was not 
evident in this plantcane study. 

Objectives and Methods: 

Research with other crops has demonstrated higher N use efficiency with application of 
Nutri-Phite™. Its mode of action is to function as a photosynthesis enhancer. Nutri-Phite™ 
was applied to sugarcane cultivar "LO 1-283 "in 50 ft plots at two rates, a half gallon/acre and a 
gallon/acre split applied a week apart, with the initial application accomplished when the 
sugarcane was approximately three feet tall. Applications were made on June 2 and June 10 with 
a pressurized backpack sprayer at 30 gallons of water per acre. A recommended rate of N 
fertilizer was blanket applied to the entire experimental area prior to application of the product. 
Data were recorded for stalk population and cane and sugar yield. 

Results: 

Sugarcane appeared indifferent to the application of Nutri-Phite™. No significant 
response in cane or sugar yield was recorded, as shown in the table below. Failure to elicit a 
response may have been because application was not made at an appropriate growth stage for 
sugarcane. Perhaps the product did promote higher N use efficiency, but it was not detectable 
because sugarcane often does not respond to a N-enriched environment in the plantcane phase of 
the production cycle. Additional evaluation is warranted to determine optimal application 
timing, especially in the stubble phase of the production cycle where a positive response may be 
more possible. 



Application rate 

of formulated 

material 


Pounds 
sugar/acre 


Tons cane/acre 


TRS 
lb/ton 


Stalks/acre 


Check 


7,354 


32.4 


227 


29,185 


Half gallon/acre 


6,776 


31.9 


213 


28,459 


Gallon/acre, split 

applied 8 days 

apart 


7,091 


32.6 


219 


31,654 


LSD = .05 


NS 


NS 


NS 


NS 



139 



THE RESPONSE OF SWEET SORGHUM TO NITROGEN FERTILIZER RATES 

H. P. "Sonny" Viator and Greg Williams 
Iberia Research Station 

Summary: 

Two sweet sorghum varieties, M-81E and Topper 76-6, were evaluated for their response 
to varying nitrogen fertilizer rates (40, 60, 80 and 100 pounds per acre) on a Baldwin silty clay 
loam in 2008 and 2009. The variety by nitrogen application rate interaction was not significant 
for all production traits. Only Brix was affected by N rate. 

Performance of sweet sorghum varieties at varying fertilizer N rates at Jeanerette, LA in 2008-09 



N rate (lb/a) 



Brix 



Tons of millable 
stalks/a 



Stalk 
population/a 



Tons of 

fermentable 

sugar/a 



40 



17.0 a 



21.9 



32,235 



3.34 



60 



16.4 be 



23.1 



32,020 



3.41 



80 



16.5 ab 



26.1 



33,414 



3.90 



100 



16.0 c 



25.4 



32,121 



3.64 



P = 



0.002 



NS 



NS 



NS 



Nitrogen rate means, averaged over the two varieties, in columns followed by a common letter 
are not significantly different at P=0.05. The variety x N rate interaction for all variables was not 
significant. 



Evaluation of sweet sorghum varieties at varying fertilizer N rates at Jeanerette, LA in 2008-09 



Variety 



N rate (lb/a) 



BRIX 



Tons of 
millable 
stalks/a 



Population/a 



Tons of 

fermentable 

sugar/a 



40 



16.9 



21.4 



31133 



3.23 



M81E 



60 



16.3 



22.7 



33372 



3.32 



80 



16.1 



26.4 



34818 



3.84 



100 



15.6 



25.7 



33892 



3.61 



Variety mean 



16.2 b 



24.1 



33304 



3.50 



40 



17.0 



22.5 



33336 



3.45 



Topper 76-6 



60 



16.5 



23.4 



30667 



3.50 



80 



17.0 



26.0 



32011 



3.95 



100 



16.3 



25.0 



30311 



3.66 



Variety mean 



16.7 a 



24.2 



31581 



3.64 



P = 



0.007 



NS 



NS 



NS 



Varietal means, averaged over N rates, in columns followed by a common letter are not 
significantly different at the P=0.05. The variety x N rate interaction for all variables was not 
significant. 



Research was partially supported by a grant from the American Sugar Cane League. 



140 



MONITORING OF SOIL SALINITY AFTER HURRICANE STORM SURGES 

H.P. "Sonny" Viator 1 , Andrew Granger 2 , Blair Hebert 3 , Barton Joffrion 4 and Rick Louque 5 

! Iberia Research Station, 2 Vermilion Parish, 3 Iberia Parish, 

4 Terrebonne Parish, and 5 Assumption Parish 



Summary: 

Monitoring of soil salinity subsequent to the storm surges of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 
Gustav and Ike was accomplished to assess the association between salinity level and sugarcane 
yield. While many sites possessed salinity levels well above the damage threshold (estimated to 
be approximately 1 ,000 ppm in the root zone) shortly after the waters receded, salinity at most of 
these sites was significantly lowered by the high rainfall amounts typically recorded in south 
Louisiana. Also, sugar yields were mostly acceptable when the sites were harvested a year after 
the storms. Recalcitrant salinity, believed to be caused by movement of salty water and high 
water tables, was detected at a few locations where sugarcane fields are in close proximity to 
tidal waters. The level and distribution of soil salinity associated with the storm surge and the 
extent of leaching of the salinity by rainfall were similar for all the Hurricanes. 

Methods: 

Sites sampled for soil salinity after the tidal surges of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike were re- 
sampled for salt content at harvest this fall. Sample depth was to 6 in. and 6 to 12 in. in the 
rooting zone. Sugar per acre yield estimates were also measured for sugarcane immediately 
adjacent to the geo-referenced sites sampled for soil salinity, using 25 ft. long plots for hand 
harvesting of samples for lab analysis. 

Results: 

Soil salinity level ranged from 1 12 to 4,774 ppm immediately after the storm surge and 
from 91 to 1,869 ppm at sugarcane harvest a year later. Of the 14 sites sampled after Hurricanes 
Gustav and Ike, only one still possessed salinity above 1 ,000 ppm. Sugar yield ranged from 
2,388 to 9,717 lb of sugar per acre, with the lowest yielding site possessing the highest level of 
salinity. It appears that soil salinity generally disappears within a year in our high-rainfall 
environment. Some areas, however, remain salty because of their proximity to salty water 
subject to tidal movements or a high water table. 



Research partially supported by a grant from the American Sugar Cane League. 



141 




Sites samples for soil salinity and sugarcane yield after the storm surges of Hurricanes Gustav 
and Ike. Salinity ranged up to 4,774 ppm shortly after the storm. 



142 



EFFECT OF RESIDUE MANAGEMENT ON ATRAZINE RETENTION AND 
SUGARCANE YIELD GROWN ON COMMERCE SOIL 

H. M. Selim, Al Arceneaux, Eric Ferguson, Lixia Liao, and R. L. Bengtson 

School of Plant, Environmental and Soil Sciences 1 and 

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering 



In this study we investigated the effect of sugarcane residue (mulch cover) resulting from 
the combine harvester on sugarcane variety L97-128. Our focus was on sugarcane yield 
(biomass and sugar) and the decay of residue post harvest. Three residue management practices 
were implemented at the St. Gabriel Research Station. The three treatments were; (i) burning the 
mulch after harvest, off-barring and cultivating in the spring; (ii) sweeping the mulch off the top 
of the row after harvest, off-barring and cultivating in the spring; and (iii) leaving the mulch on 
the field after harvest, off-barring and cultivating in the spring. The last treatment where the 
mulch is not removed may be best regarded as a no-till treatment which is a commonly used soil 
conservation measure. The sugarcane was planted on August 15, 2006 on Commerce loam soil. 
Sugarcane population, yield, and amount of mulch residue left on the soil surface were measured 
for each treatment. We summarize results for plantcane and first stubble (2007-2009). 

Yields 

The Commerce site consisted of six plots (two replications x three treatments). Each plot 
consisted of nine rows 440 ft length with levees between plots. Second stubble was harvested, 
using a combine harvester, on November 1 9, 2009. The yields from the second stubble were 
28.7, 28.2, and 28.9 tons/acre, for the burn, no-till, and sweep treatments, respectively. The 
respective sugar yield for the three treatments were 6141, 5848, 6220 lb per acre. We found no 
statistical differences obtained for the sugar yield among all the treatments from first stubble (see 
Table 1). Moreover, these yields were lower than that for plantcane of 2007 but higher than the 
first stubble. 

Arazine Sorption by Mulch Residue 

We investigated the effectiveness of residue on retention of applied atrazine on sugarcane. The 
residue was collected randomly on November 7, December 8, 2008, January 8, February 4, and 
March 6 2009. Variety L97-128 was used and was planted on August 15, 2006. Our results are 
from the first stubble which was harvested November 3, 2008. Multiple 1 m2 areas were 
collected within the plots. The residue was dried at 55C or 24 and weighed. The soil was 
Commerce silt loam. Atrazine retention by the residue and the Commerce soil were measured in 
laboratory using batch methods where radioactive isotope (14C-UL ring labeled) was used. The 
rate of decay of the sugarcane residue was also quantified. The results indicated that the rate of 
atrazine retention by the residue was similar for the entire growing season with an average value 
of Kd = 17.9 and standard errors ranging from 0.62 to72 ml/kg, and r 2 of 0.99 (see Table 2). 
Earlier work on the same soil for sugarcane varieties LCP85-384, the average atrazine retention 
rate was 16.3+0.21 ml/kg. @e found that retention capacity of the residue for atrazine did not 
change significantly with the age of the decaying residue over the growing season. Such a 

143 



finding is consistent with earlier for other varieties namely; LCP85-384, and CP70-321. 
Therefore, we conclude that only one retention parameter (or Kd )is necessary to describe 
herbicide retention, regardless of when atrazine application is made. 

Table 1. Sugarcane yields of L97-128 for second stubble on Commerce soil Harvest was on 
November 19, 2009. Sugarcane was planted on August 15, 2006. 



TREATMENT 


Rep. 
Number 


Number of Stalks 
(1000/ acre) 


Cane Yield 
tons/acre 


Sugar Yield 
lbs/ acre 


Burn 


1 

2 


34.8 


29.5 


6649 


34.4 


27.9 


5633 


Average 


34.6 


28.7 


6141 


No - Till 


1 

2 


35.0 


28.8 


6244 


33.5 


27.5 


5451 


Average 


34.3 


28.2 


5848 


Sweep 




35.1 


29.5 


6360 


35.1 


28.2 


6080 


Average 


35.1 


28.9 


6220 


LSD 0.05 


NS 


NS 


NS 



Table 2. Estimated linear parameter model Kd (mL g ) for Atrazine adsorption by sugarcane 
mulch residue (L97-128) along with 95% confidence interval. The residue was 
sampled at several dates following sugarcane harvest of the first stubble on November 3, 
2008. 



Date 


Age of 

Residue 

(Days) 


Linear Model 
K d (mL g 1 ) 


r 2 


7-Nov-08 


4 


17.39±0.72 


0.9948 


8-Dec-08 


37 


18.69±1.43 


0.9828 


8-Jan-09 


68 


17.47±0.99 


0.9904 


4-Feb-09 


105 


16.82±0.62 


0.9959 


6-Mar-09 


136 


19.16±0.61 


0.9969 



144 



400 



350 - 



■ 300 

D) 

£ 250 



200 - 



0) 

o 

g 150 
"n 

CO 

£ 100 

< 



50 - 



Atrazine 24h Isotherm 




H) 


Nov. 7, 2008 


• 


Dec. 8, 2008 


• 


Jan. 8, 2009 


® 


Feb. 4, 2009 


• 


March 6, 2009 




- Linear Prediction 





-I — 
10 



15 



- r - 
20 



Atrazine concentration (mg L' 1 ) 

Figure 1. Atrazine sorption isotherms of atrazine by sugarcane mulch residue (variety L97-128) 
as a function of the age of residue. First stubble was harvested November 3, 2009. 



145 



STALK COLD TOLERANCE OF COMMERCIAL AND CANDIDATE VARIETIES 

Benjamin Legendre, Harold Birkett and Jeanie Stein 1 , and 



2 



Michael Duet, Thomas Tew and Gillian Eggleston , 
'Audubon Sugar Institute and 2 USDA-ARS, Houma, LA 



INTRODUCTION 

The exposure of sugarcane to damaging frosts occurs in over 20 of the 79 sugarcane 
producing countries, but is most frequent on the mainland of the United States. The frequent 
winter freezes in the sugarcane area of Louisiana forced the industry to adapt to a short growing 
season (7-9 months) and a short milling season (about 3 months). In order to measure the post- 
freeze deterioration of stalks of commercial and candidate varieties, a collaborative study 
between the LSU AgCenter, Audubon Sugar Institute, St. Gabriel, LA and the USDA-ARS, 
Sugarcane Research Unit, Houma, LA, at the USDA-ARS Ardoyne Farm on Bull Run Road at 
Chacahoula, LA. 

METHOD 

Variety trials for estimating stalk cold tolerance by measuring post-freeze deterioration 
of stalks of commercial and candidate varieties in the field are routinely planted at the Ardoyne 
Farm, Houma, LA. Commercial varieties of known cold tolerance are grown as controls. They 
include, but are not limited to, the following varieties: LCP 85-384 for good stalk cold tolerance 
and TucCP 77-42 for poor cold tolerance. From 8 to 10 commercial and candidate varieties, 
including the control varieties, are planted in the late summer or early fall of each year. Planting 
is done on raised ridges 1 .8 m apart. Variety plots are 12-15 m long and 3 rows wide. The 
experimental design is a randomized complete block with 3 or 4 replications. Plots are cultivated 
and fertilized according to recommended plantation practices; insecticides are applied as 
required according to the economic threshold. The cane is allowed to remain in the field until 
the first freeze of the harvest season of the year following planting (plant-cane crop). Just prior 
to or immediately following a freeze, samples are removed serially along the center row of each 
plot. Normally, from 1 to 5 post-freeze samples are taken depending upon the severity of the 
freeze and post-freeze weather conditions. Each sample consists of 1 5 stalks cut at the ground 
by hand but not stripped or topped. All samples are weighed and passed through a pre-breaker. 
A sub-sample of 2.2 lb (1000 g) of the prepared cane is pressed in a hydraulic press at 2,500 psi 
for 1 minute, 15 seconds that separates the cane sample into juice and residue (bagasse), both of 
which are analyzed, the former for Brix by refractometer and sucrose by polarimetry and the 
latter only for moisture (by drying). The Brix, sucrose, purity and fiber content of the cane are 
then calculated from these analyses. Then from these data, the estimated yield of theoretical 
recoverable sugar per ton of cane (TRS/TC) is calculated. Mean stalk weight is calculated by 
dividing the sample weight by the number of stalks per sample. Juice samples are also analyzed 
for pH, titratable acidity, mannitol and dextran by the ASI II Method and total soluble 
polysacharide. When possible, visual ratings are made for both leaf and stalk cold tolerance in 
the field. 



146 



In the current experiment, nine commercial and two candidate varieties were planted at 
the Ardoyne Farm during the late summer 2008. The commercial varieties included in the study 
were: LCP 85-384, Ho 95-988, HoCP 96-540, L 97-128, L99-226, L 99-233, HoCP 00-950, L 
01-283 and TucCP 77-42 (Argentina). Candidate varieties included in the study were: L 03-371 
and HoCP 04-838. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Freezing temperatures that affected the Louisiana sugar industry during the 2009-2010 
harvest season occurred for 1 1 straight nights from January 2 through January 12 with a low 
reported at Ryan Airport at Baton Rouge of 18°F occurring on January 1 1 following two nights 
where the temperatures dipped to 19°F. Freezing conditions prevailed for over 12 hours for each 
of these three nights. An inspection of the stalks on the morning of January 9 revealed that all 
internal stalk tissue had been damaged by the previous night's freeze. It was noted that 
longitudinal cracks appeared on all stalks for each of these three nights when, in fact, all stalk 
tissue was frozen solid. After thawing, all internal tissue appeared ruptured with a brownish and 
watery appearance. 

Samples were taken the mornings of January 8, 15 and 23. Results for mean stalk 
weight, brix%cane, sucrose%cane, purity%cane, fiber%cane, yield of theoretical recoverable 
sugar per ton cane (TRS), pH, titratable acidity (ml 0. 1 N NaOH) and total polysaccharides 
(ppm/brix) are shown in Table 1 . 



147 



Table. 


1 . Summary of results of 2009 - 20 1 freeze tests 1 . 










Test 


Variety 


MSW 

(lb) 


B%C 


S%C 


P%C 


F%C 


TRS 

(lb/ton) 


pH 


TA 


TSP 

(ppm/Bx) 


1 


384 


2.54 


16.15 


13.55 


87.21 


21.00 


212.5 


5.46 


1.89 


5,628 


2 


384 


2.36 


16.17 


13.38 


85.57 


21.26 


207.8 


5.54 


1.69 


6,140 


3 


384 


2.51 


15.55 


11.71 


77.77 


21.08 


172.7 


4.36 


3.33 


32,723 


1 


988 


2.79 


16.71 


14.33 


88.25 


18.10 


234.0 


5.54 


1.81 


4,634 


2 


988 


2.72 


16.70 


14.08 


86.38 


18.16 


227.8 


5.62 


1.73 


6,136 


3 


988 


2.51 


15.86 


12.18 


79.08 


20.01 


183.8 


4.73 


3.09 


20,122 


1 


540 


3.20 


16.71 


14.05 


87.34 


20.64 


221.4 


5.48 


1.94 


6,183 


2 


540 


3.04 


16.76 


14.11 


86,81 


20.19 


223.6 


5.59 


1.95 


5,625 


3 


540 


2.86 


15.91 


11.75 


76.41 


21.58 


170.4 


4.48 


4.41 


35,845 


1 


128 


3.19 


16.25 


13.89 


88.11 


20.78 


220.5 


5.48 


2.16 


6,317 


2 


128 


3.02 


16.31 


13.62 


85.95 


21.36 


212.3 


5.60 


2.05 


6,544 


3 


128 


2.87 


15.58 


11.93 


78.76 


22.49 


174.9 


4.78 


3.16 


16,808 


1 


226 


3.89 


16.53 


14.22 


88.47 


17.59 


233.7 


5.61 


1.68 


5,015 


2 


226 


3.53 


16.37 


13.87 


86.84 


17.96 


225.4 


5.68 


1.59 


4,819 


3 


226 


3.71 


15.76 


11.45 


74.61 


18.73 


169.0 


4.29 


3.98 


43,783 


1 


233 


2.47 


17.17 


14.98 


89.55 


18.79 


245.1 


5.50 


2.08 


5,372 


2 


233 


2.63 


16.73 


13.98 


85.57 


18.78 


224.0 


5.35 


2.38 


13,141 


3 


233 


2.34 


16.20 


10.73 


67.83 


20.21 


146.9 


4.12 


5.84 


90,158 


1 


950 


2.75 


17.76 


15.56 


90.55 


19.05 


254.3 


5.49 


2.05 


4,707 


2 


950 


2.83 


17.26 


14.50 


86.52 


19.96 


230.1 


5.58 


1.99 


5,481 


3 


950 


2.64 


16.66 


12.99 


80.45 


21.39 


195.0 


4.58 


3.68 


15,066 


1 


283 


2.36 


17.42 


15.21 


90.17 


18.35 


250.0 


5.50 


1.92 


5,404 


2 


283 


2.30 


17.38 


14.82 


87.79 


18.65 


240.3 


5.57 


1.81 


6,040 


3 


283 


2.24 


16.40 


12.51 


78.59 


19.10 


189.9 


4.97 


2.73 


27,730 


1 


371 


2.99 


16,87 


14.48 


88.62 


17.84 


237.2 


5,62 


1.54 


4,632 


2 


371 


2.72 


16.76 


14.26 


87.36 


18.40 


231.3 


5.73 


1.55 


4,901 


3 


371 


2.62 


16.12 


11.67 


74.93 


19.92 


169.6 


4.45 


3.64 


28,127 


1 


838 


2.79 


15.69 


13.07 


87.05 


22.72 


200.3 


5.55 


2.17 


6,179 


2 


838 


3.04 


15.65 


12.93 


85.83 


24.02 


194.3 


5.64 


1.99 


6,022 


3 


838 


2.84 


15.62 


11.78 


78.22 


22.87 


170.5 


4.73 


3.12 


28,385 


1 


42 


3.61 


15.58 


12.96 


85.12 


19.10 


206.4 


5.31 


3.19 


5,659 


2 


42 


3.23 


15.16 


11.88 


80.23 


20.17 


181.1 


5.34 


3.02 


12,515 


3 


42 


2.89 


14.46 


7.94 


56.42 


21.51 


89.7 


4.16 


7.95 


77,650 



1 Test 1 = sampled 01/08/10; Test 2 = sampled 01/15/10; Test 3 = sampled 01/23/10; MSW = 
mean stalk weight; B%C = brix percent cane; S%C = sucrose percent cane; P%C = purity 
percent cane; F%C = fiber percent cane; TRS = theoretical recoverable sugar per ton of cane; TA 
= titratable acidity (ml 0.1 N NaOH); TSP = total soluble polysaccharide; bold print shows 
comparisons with control varieties, LCP 85-384 and TucCP 77-42, and the best commercial 
variety, HoCP 00-950, and the worst commercial variety, L 99-233, with regards to juice quality 
parameters. 



148 



No differences were noted in stalk weight amongst dates of harvest for all varieties 
during the sampling period; however, there were differences in stalk weight among varieties as 
expected (Table 1). There were also significant differences in brix%cane, sucrose%cane, 
purity %cane, flber%cane, yield of theoretical recoverable sugar per ton of cane (TRS), titratable 
acidity (ml 0.1 N NaOH) and total polysaccharide amongst varieties for all sampling dates. 
There were no differences amongst varieties for pH on the first two sampling dates. Although 
there was a trend towards lower juice quality between the first two sampling dates, the greatest 
reduction in juice quality for all varieties occurred between January 15 and 23. There was a 
significant reduction in all juice quality parameters for all varieties. Based primarily on the 
percent reduction in TRS and the percent increase in total soluble polysaccharide, HoCP 00-950 
showed the best stalk cold tolerance for the varieties included in the test and for the freezing 
events that occurred in the current test (Table 2). As a result of this test HoCP 00-950 would be 
classified as resistant. 

Three varieties, L 99-226, L 99-233 and TucCP 77-42, showed extremely poor stalk cold 
tolerance and, as a result of this test, would be classified as susceptible. The eight remaining 
varieties would be classified as intermediate with four varieties, LCP 85-384, HoCP 96-540, L 
03-371 and HoCP 04-838, in a subcategory of intermediate to susceptible because of the increase 
in total soluble polysaccharide between the January 1 5 and January 23 sampling dates. 

Table 2. Reaction of commercial and candidate sugarcane varieties to subfreezing 

temperatures based on current tests (based primarily on percent reduction in TRS 



and percent increase in tota 


soluble polysaccharide). 




Resistant 


Intermediate 


Susceptible 


HoCP 00-950 


LCP 85-384t 


L 99-226 




Ho 95-988 


L 99-233 




HoCP 96-540t 


TucCP 77-42** 




L 97-128 






L 01-283 






L03-371*t 






HoCP 04-838*t 





* Candidate varieties; ** Argentine commercial variety resistance; + Subcategory of 
Intermediate to Susceptible 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to express appreciation to Dr. Edward Richard, Jr, Research Leader, and the 
laboratory and field staff at the USDA-ARS, Sugarcane Research Unit, Houma, LA in making 
this collaborative project possible. 



149 



SUGARCANE ECONOMIC RESEARCH IN 2009 

Michael E. Salassi and Michael A. Deliberto 
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness 



Projected costs and returns for the various stages of sugarcane production in Louisiana 
were estimated for the 2009 crop year. Production and tillage practices, as well as application 
rates for fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides were updated. Input suppliers and equipment 
dealers were surveyed in 2008 for current input prices. Specific operations for which production 
costs were estimated included field operations on fallow land, seedbed preparation, cutting and 
planting heat treated seedcane, planting cultured seedcane, field operations on plantcane, first 
stubble, second stubble, and third stubble, succession planting, as well as the costs of harvesting 
with wholestalk and combine harvesters. Costs and returns were estimated for tenant-operators, 
reflecting the predominant land tenure situation, and reflect a mill payment of 39 percent of 
production and a land rent payment of one-fifth and one-sixth shares of the "after milling crop" 
proceeds. Total costs of production plus overhead for crop cycles through harvest of second, 
third and fourth stubble were estimated and breakeven prices to cover direct and total specified 
production costs were estimated for one-fifth and one-sixth share rental arrangements. Summary 
breakeven prices to cover production costs through harvest of 3rd stubble for alternative yield 
levels are shown in Table 1 . These values also represent production costs per pound of sugar 
produced at assumed yield levels. Breakeven raw sugar yield per acre of sugarcane harvested are 
presented in Table 2 for a selected range of raw sugar prices. 

Allocated (unrecovered) sugarcane planting cost estimates were estimated for sugarcane 
planted in 2009. Published estimates for allocation of total planting costs as of January 1, 2010, 
for sugarcane planted the previous year, were as follows: cultured seed cane - $1,172 per acre, 
propagated seed cane - $816 per acre, machine planted whole stalk plantcane - $836 per acre and 
machine planted billet plantcane - $1,051 per acre. These estimates serve as a basis for the 
determination of sugarcane crop value associated with changes in land ownership or tenant 
arrangements. 

Several other economic research projects were started in 2009. Those projects included 
work on estimating current costs of precision laser land leveling on sugarcane fields, evaluation 
of optimal crop cycle lengths for major sugarcane varieties produced in the state, a survey of 
typical crop rental arrangements being utilized in the state's sugarcane industry, estimating the 
cost of alternative fallow programs, the impact of planting methods and planting ratios on farm 
costs and returns, and the estimated costs of raw sugar manufacturing losses. 



150 



Table 1 . Projected breakeven selling prices for raw sugar for selected yield levels, Arrangements, 
harvest through third stubble, tenant-operators, Louisiana, 2009 







Selected Yield Levels 






-20% 


-10% Base +10% 


+20% 


Cane yield per harvested acre 1 (tons) 


27.9 


31.4 34.9 38.4 


41.9 


Sugar yield per harvested acre 2 (lbs) 


6,003 


6,753 7,504 8,254 


9,004 


Sugar yield per rotational (farm) 3 acre 3 


4,576 


5,148 5,720 6,293 


6,865 


One-Fifth Land Share Rent: 














Breakeven price to recover 4 : 








Direct costs 


19.3 


17.6 16.2 15.1 


14.2 


Total specified costs 


26.2 


23.7 21.7 20.1 


18.8 


Total costs plus overhead 


27.5 


24.9 22.8 21.1 


19.7 


One- Sixth Land Share Rent: 














Breakeven price to recover 4 : 








Direct costs 


18.5 


16.9 15.6 14.5 


13.6 


Total specified costs 


25.1 


22.8 20.9 19.3 


18.0 


Total costs plus overhead 


26.4 


23.9 21.9 20.3 


18.9 



1 Average farm yield across harvested acreage of plantcane, 1 st stubble, 2nd stubble, and 3rd 
stubble (base yield of 36 tons plantcane, 37 tons 1st stubble, 34 tons 2nd stubble, 33 tons 3rd 
stubble). 

9 • • • ■ 

Average yield in tons per acre multiplied by a 215 CRS. 

Assumes standard land rotation of 20% each of fallow, plantcane, 1 st stubble, 2nd stubble and 
3rd stubble. 

4 Breakeven prices are calculated by dividing grower's share of production into direct costs, total 
specified costs, and total specified costs plus overhead. 



Table 2. Projected breakeven raw sugar yields for selected raw sugar price levels, 
harvest through third stubble, tenant-operators, Louisiana, 2009 







Selected Raw Sugar Price Levels 






-1.0 


-0.5 Base +0.5 


+1.0 


Raw sugar price (cents per pound) 


19.5 


20.0 20.5 21.0 


21.5 


One-Fifth Land Share Rent: 
















Breakeven yield to recover: 








Direct costs 


6,248 


6,092 5,943 5,802 


5,667 


Total specified costs 


8,379 


8,170 7,970 7,781 


7,600 


Total costs plus overhead 


8,793 


8,574 8,365 8,165 


7,975 


One-Sixth Land Share Rent: 




pounds of sugar per harv. acre- 








Breakeven yield to recover: 








Direct costs 


6,002 


5,852 5,709 5,573 


5,444 


Total specified costs 


8,049 


7,848 7,657 7,474 


7,301 


Total costs plus overhead 


8,447 


8,236 8,035 7,844 


7,661 



151 



RIPENER UPDATE 

Al Orgeron 1 , Benjamin Legendre 2 , Michael Pontif 3 , Jim Griffin 4 and Kenneth Gravois 3 

St. James Parish, Audubon Sugar Institute, Sugar Research Station, 

School of Plant, Environmental and Soil Sciences 



INTRODUCTION 

Artificial ripening of sugarcane as a complement to natural maturity has been made 
possible by the development of glyphosate, a plant growth regulator for use as a chemical ripener 
that hastens sugarcane maturation and increases sugar yield per ton of cane and per acre. Many 
may be familiar with glyphosate as the herbicide Roundup (Monsanto Company), a broad 
spectrum burndown herbicide used in Roundup Ready crops, fallow weed control programs and 
residential areas. Glyphosate is also one of the most effective chemical ripeners used on a 
world-wide basis; it apparently influences the way dry matter is partitioned, increasing the ratio 
of sugar to fiber thus enhancing the sugar level of the juice and cane. However, glyphosate 
treatment usually decreases cane yield in the crop by slowing cane growth after treatment, thus 
reducing stalk weight. In Louisiana, the effectiveness of glyphosate for ripening sugarcane is 
highly dependent upon variety, rate of glyphosate, treatment-harvest interval and growing 
season. 

Glyphosate was first labeled and marketed as the chemical ripener Polado (wettable 
powder) from Monsanto Company in 1 980 and later sold as Polado L [4 lb acid equivalent 
(ae)/gal] for use as a management tool to increase the yield of sugar per ton of cane and sugar per 
acre. Polado (or Polado L) was the only glyphosate formulation labeled for commercial use until 
2003 when Touchdown IQ (3.0 lb ae/gal) from Syngenta Crop Protection was labeled. In 2007, 
there were three glyphosate formulations available for use as chemical ripeners for sugarcane in 
Louisiana: Touchdown Total (4.17 lb ae/gal), which replaced Touchdown IQ, both from 
Syngenta Crop Protection and Roundup WeatherMAX (4.5 lb ae) and Roundup PowerMAX (5.5 
lb ae) from Monsanto Company along with a limited supply of Polado-L. These newer 
formulations have different concentrations of glyphosate acid per gallon in the diammonium, 
monopotassium or potassium salt form. These products all contain glyphosate as the active 
ingredient and act with the same mode of action and, when applied at the equivalent rate of 
Polado-L, its users can anticipate similar results. 

Slow stand development or shoot emergence in spring following the use of glyphosate is 
commonly observed in sugarcane treated with glyphosate. Research has shown that annual 
treatments with glyphosate (Polado L) within the same crop cycle will usually increase mean 
annual sugar yield, but, depending upon the sensitivity of the variety and the treatment-harvest 
interval, can negatively impact the yield of sugar per acre in the subsequent stubble crop(s). 
Additional research has shown that regrowth of cane treated with glyphosate can be further 
impacted by not removing the residue following green cane harvesting with the cane combine. 
The impact on regrowth is variety dependent with some varieties more sensitive to repeated use 
of glyphosate within the crop cycle. Polado L and Touchdown Hi-Tech are formulated without 
added surfactant. However, research has demonstrated that a quality non-ionic surfactant can 

152 



improve the efficacy of these products. The remaining three products, Roundup WeatherMAX, 
Touchdown IQ and Touchdown Total, are formulated with a surfactant and no additional 
surfactant is recommended. 

Currently, glyphosate is used on approximately 250,000 to 300,000 acres in Louisiana 
each crop year, netting the state's sugarcane growers, processors and landlords an estimated 
$100 per acre in increased revenue. The average increase in recoverable sugar per ton of cane is 
approximately 20 lb with a range of 5 to 30 lb depending upon variety, condition of the crop at 
and following application of the glyphosate and weather conditions between treatment and 
harvest. Along with the increase in recoverable sugar per ton of cane there is a corresponding 
decrease in cane tonnage of approximately 2 tons with a range of 1 to 4 tons depending upon 
variety and date of application. For early harvest (late September), glyphosate must be applied 
when the cane is still actively growing in August; therefore, a treatment-harvest interval of 28 
days is generally recommended. As the harvest season progresses into late October through 
November when vegetative growth is decreased, the treatment-harvest interval can be increased 
to 49 days for maximum response in recoverable sugar per acre. The anticipated increase in 
sugar per acre can range from 350 lb/A early in the harvest season to over 600 lb/A from mid 
October through mid November. This increase in sugar per acre adds approximately $30 million 
in increased gross revenues each year for the State's sugarcane industry. With a material and 
application cost of approximately $4 million annual, the use of glyphosate has a benefit to use 
ratio of 7.5 to 1. This cost is typically paid for partially or in its entirety by the factories because 
of the increased recovery of sugar per ton of cane. 

For the last three years, research has been conducted on the use of trinexapac-ethyl 
(Palisade) from Syngenta Crop Protection, as an alternative to the use of glyphosate. Palisade is 
a plant growth regulator labeled for use on perennial ryegrass. It slows the growth of grass stems 
when the product is applied at the manufacturer's suggested rate. Research conducted to date 
has shown that Palisade has increased the yield of recoverable sugar per ton without a dramatic 
decrease in cane tonnage or impact on the subsequent stubble crop as seen with glyphosate. 

No current glyphosate formulations are labeled for use on the plant-cane crop because of 
the potential for these products to cause significant yield reduction in the subsequent stubble 
crop, especially when used at the higher rates. Therefore, additional research is ongoing to find 
alternative ripeners like trinexapac-ethyl that can be used on the plant-cane crop without the loss 
of yield in the subsequent stubble crop as well as find potential ripeners that have no deleterious 
impact on the yield of the crop to be harvested. It is also advantageous that ripeners be 
developed where the crop can be harvested at a reduced treatment-harvest interval. 

METHOD 

In 2008, the commercial sugarcane varieties, HoCP 96-540, L 99-226, L 99-233, HoCP 00- 
950, and L 01-283, were planted on August 26, 2008 at St. Gabriel, LA to evaluate their response 
to the sugarcane ripeners, Touchdown Total (glyphosate) and Palisade (Trinexapac-ethyl). There 
were four ripener treatments arranged as a complete factorial with five varieties. Treatment plots 
were 50 ft. long by one row wide (6 ft.), arranged as a randomized complete block design with 
four replicates. 

153 



The objectives of this study were as follows: 1) to compare the effectiveness of the 
ripeners Touchdown Total and Palisade EC on HoCP 96-540, L 99-226, L 99-233, HoCP 00- 
950, and L 01-283; and, 2) to evaluate sucrose storage within the top, middle, and bottom section 
of the stalk following treatment with Touchdown Total and Palisade EC. 

Touchdown Total was applied at 5.7 oz/A (0.187 lb/A) and Palisade EC at 0.276 and 
0.312 lb/A on August 28, 2009 using a C02-pressurized backpack sprayer delivering 140 L/ha at 
1 90 kPa. Nontreated plots of each variety were included as controls. Ripener rates were based 
on previously published results in the 2004 and 2005 LSU AgCenter's Sugarcane Research 
Annual Progress Report. 

A ten-stalk sample from each plot was hand harvested on September 21, 2009, 28 days 
after treatment (DAT). Samples were weighed and stalks were processed for brix, apparent 
sucrose and apparent purity at the Sugar Research Station Sucrose Lab at St. Gabriel, LA using 
NIR. These data were used to calculate the yield of theoretical recoverable sugar per ton of cane 
(TRS/TC). Due to excessive lodging cause by thunder storms and continuous rainfall events, 
sampling at 42 DAT was not conducted. On October 19, 2009, 56 DAT, a fifteen-stalk sample 
was hand harvested from each plot; plots were then mechanically harvested with a sugarcane 
combine and loaded into a wagon equipped with load cells to obtain actual plot yield. Hand 
harvested samples were weighed and the weight added to plot weights. Bundles were separated 
into a 6- and 9-stalk sub-sample. The 6-stalk sub-sample was processed as whole stalks through 
a roller mill at the Sugar Research Station to obtain brix by refractometer, apparent sucrose by 
saccharimeter and apparent purity as the relationship between apparent sucrose and purity. These 
data were then used to calculate TRS/TC and together with plot weights to calculate the yield of 
theoretically recoverable sugar per acre (TRS/A). 

The 9-stalk sub-sample was measured for stalk length, and then partitioned into equal 
thirds by using the recorded average bundle length. Partitioned segments were labeled as top, 
middle, or bottom third of the stalk, and then were weighed and milled. Juice samples were 
analyzed for brix, apparent sucrose and apparent purity of partitioned segments. Data collected 
were used to model sucrose storage within stalks. 

SAS was used to evaluate the data in a mixed model format for both objectives. Mean 
separation used least square means probability differences where P=0.05. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

All varieties treated with Touchdown Total had statistically more TRS/TC, at 28 DAT, 
except for L 01-283 when compared to their respective control plots (Table 1). The percentage 
improvements over the control plots in TRS/TC for varieties treated with Touchdown Total were 
57.8, 56.6, 27.4, 27.0 and 12.1% for HoCP 96-540, L 99-226, L 99-233, HoCP 00-950, and L 
01-283, respectively, at 28 DAT. HoCP 96-540, L 99-226, HoCP 00-950, and L 01-283 showed 
a significant improvement over their respective control plots for TRS/TC at 28 DAT when 
treated with Palisade at rates of 0.276 or 0.312 lbs/A, but L 99-233 only showed a numerical 
improvement. No statistical differences were detected for mean stalk weight (MSW) and mean 

154 



stalk length (MSL) at 28 DAT for all varieties and ripener treatment combinations. 

Statistically higher TRS/TC levels at 56 DAT were achieved in all varieties where 
Touchdown Total was applied at 5.7oz/A compared to their respective control (Table2). 
TRS/TC levels at 56 DAT for L 99-266, L 99-233, and L 01-283, when treated with Palisade at 
0.276 lb/A, were significantly higher than their respective control plots. HoCP 96-540 and L 99- 
226 plots treated with Palisade at 0.312 lb/A yielded statistically more TRS/TC at 56 DAT than 
their respective control. Statistical differences were undetected for tons of cane per acre (TC/A) 
and mean stalk length (MSL) 56 DAT for all varieties and ripener treatment combinations. 
TRS/A was only statistically improved for the Touchdown Total treatment with L 99-226 and the 
Palisade treatment applied at 0.276 lb/A with L 01-283 over their respective control plots. MSW 
was significantly reduced in the HoCP 96-540 and L 99-226 plots treated with Touchdown Total, 
L 99-226 and L 01-283 plots treated with Palisade at 0.276 lb/A, and L 99-226 and HoCP 00-283 
plots treated with Palisade at 0.312 lb/A. 

Touchdown Total treated stalk segments for the top, middle, and bottom third of the stalk 
as an average of all varieties yielded statistically more TRS/TC than respective control (Figure 
1). Significantly higher TRS/TC levels over their controls were achieved with Palisade at 0.276 
lb/A by top segment and Palisade at 0.312 lb/A by middle segment. 

Stand counts taken this spring showed that as an average of all varieties shoot counts in 
the glyphosate and Palisade treated plots were significantly higher than control plots. This is not 
unusual as the buds in the chemically-treated plots are delayed and generally germinate later in 
the season. Buds in the control plots tend to germinate with warmer temperatures and are killed 
back by subsequent freezes during the winter thus reducing the number of buds available in the 
spring. 



155 



Table 1. Effects of 3 ripener treatments on 6 commercial sugarcane cultivars, on yield of theoretical 
recoverable sugar per ton cane (TRS/TC), % TRS Increase over control, mean stalk weight 
(MSW) and mean stalk length (MSL) in plantcane harvested 28 days after treatment. 



Variety 



Ripener 



TRS/TC 
(lbs) 



%TRS 
Increase 



MSW 

(lbs) 



MSL 

(in) 



HoCP 96-540 



L 99-226 



L 99-233 



HoCP 00-950 



L 01-283 



Control 
T.D. @ 5.7oz 
Pal @ 0.276 lb 
Pal @ 0.312 lb 

Control 
T.D. @ 5.7oz 
Pal @ 0.276 lb 
Pal @ 0.312 lb 

Control 
T.D. @ 5.7oz 
Pal @ 0.276 lb 
Pal @ 0.312 lb 

Control 
T.D. @5.7oz 
Pal @ 0.276 lb 
Pal @ 0.312 lb 

Control 
T.D. @ 5.7oz 
Pal @ 0.276 lb 
Pal @ 0.312 lb 



109 






2.22 


84.5 


172 


+ 


57.8 


2.19 


78.9 


133 


+ 


22.0 


2.41 


80.7 


152 


+ 


39.4 


2.17 


79.3 


106 






2.60 


85.4 


166 


+ 


56.6 


2.31 


75.0 


133 


+ 


25.5 


2.53 


81.7 


141 


+ 


33.0 


2.30 


80.4 


124 






1.78 


84.1 


158 


+ 


27.4 


1.60 


77.0 


144 




16.1 


1.67 


84.7 


125 




0.8 


1.69 


85.4 


126 






2.00 


76.2 


160 


+ 


27.0 


1.94 


77.2 


157 


+ 


24.6 


1.87 


71.3 


172 


+ 


36.5 


1.96 


74.0 


132 






1.85 


81.7 


148 




12.1 


1.77 


78.2 


155 


+ 


17.4 


1.80 


76.4 


160 


+ 


21.2 


1.82 


75.8 



Treatments that are significantly (P=0.05) higher or lower that respective control plots 

are denoted by a plus (+) or (-), respectively, next to the value for each trait. TD = Touchdown; 

Pal = Palisade 



156 



Table 2. Effects of 3 ripener treatments on 6 commercial sugarcane cultivars, on yield of 

theoretical recoverable sugar per acre (TRS/A), yield of cane per acre (TC/A), yield of 
theoretical recoverable sugar per ton cane (TRS/TC), mean stalk weight % TRS Increase over 

control, (MSW) and mean stalk length (MSL) in plantcane harvested 56 days after treatment. 



Variety 



Ripener 



TRS/A 

(lbs/A) 



TC/A 
(tons) 



TRS/TC 

(lbs) 



%TRS 
Increase 



MSW 

(lbs) 



MSL 
(in) 



HoCP 96-540 


Control 


9842 


50.7 


194 






2.65 


90.6 




T.D. @ 5.7oz 


11646 


46.6 


250 


+ 


28.9 


2.19 


- 81.1 




Pal @ 0.276 lb 


8355 


46.8 


178 




-8.2 


2.58 


84.7 




Pal @ 0.312 lb 


11079 


49.9 


222 


+ 


14.4 


2.57 


91.2 


L 99-226 


Control 


9868 


51.8 


190 






3.34 


99.6 




T.D. @ 5.7oz 


12717 + 48.5 


262 


+ 


37.9 


2.59 


- 79.5 




Pal @ 0.276 lb 


11217 


49.5 


227 


+ 


19.5 


3.00 


- 88.4 




Pal @ 0.312 lb 


10163 


47.2 


216 


+ 


13.7 


2.88 


- 89.7 


L 99-233 


Control 


9960 


52.2 


189 






1.91 


93.7 




T.D. @ 5.7oz 


10454 


44.8 


236 


+ 


24.9 


1.80 


85.8 




Pal @ 0.276 lb 


9857 


45.7 


216 


+ 


14.3 


1.94 


91.9 




Pal @ 0.312 lb 


10332 


49.5 


209 




10.6 


2.01 


89.8 


HoCP 00-950 


Control 


9884 


48.2 


205 






2.67 


92.3 




T.D. @ 5.7oz 


10633 


44.8 


237 


+ 


15.6 


2.51 


88.6 




Pal @ 0.276 lb 


9368 


44.1 


213 




3.9 


2.49 


84.7 




Pal @ 0.312 lb 


9991 


46.5 


215 




4.9 


2.35 


- 83.5 


L 01-283 


Control 


9993 


50.6 


198 






2.22 


92.5 




T.D. @ 5.7oz 


11008 


49.2 


224 


+ 


13.1 


2.00 


81.7 




Pal @ 0.276 lb 


12752 + 56.8 


225 


+ 


13.6 


1.87 


- 81.1 




Pal @ 0.312 lb 


8680 


41.7 


208 




5.1 


1.96 


- 80.7 



Treatments that are significantly (P=0.05) higher or lower that respective control plots 

are denoted by a plus (+) or (-), respectively, next to the value for each trait. TD = Touchdown; 

Pal = Palisade 



157 



Figure 1. Effect of chemical treatments on yield of theoretical recoverable sugar per ton of cane 
(TRS) for the bottom third, middle third and top third of the stalk 1 . 



300 



Treatment by Stalk Section 



p<0.05 



































259 " 






251 












200 


227 




235 


240 




221 


230 














208 










204 






150 










































155 


149 


















134 








100 


































50 


CD 


A 


BCD 


BC E 


AB 


DE 


CD 


G 


E 


F 


FG 





o 


GJ 









u 


pj 


~~~~ 


OJ 


o 


i> 




rsj 




o 




&■ 






o 








01 


re 








re 
O 


o 




"a 

re 




re 


o 


T3 

re 


re 


re 
a 


O 


re 


ra 

CO 




>7 

C 
O 


Q. 
13 


re 

Q. 


"re 
a. 




C 

O 


>- 
(3 


re 
a. 


re 
a. 


c 
o 




re 

Q- 


To 

EL 




Z 










H 








Z 














Bottom 










Middle 






Top 





TRS 



1/ Touchdown applied at 5.7oz/ac; Palisade 1 applied at 0.276 lb/ac; Palisade 2 applied at 0.312 lb/ac 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to express appreciation to the American Sugar Cane League and Syngenta Crop 
Protection for their support of this research project. 



158 



PUBLICATIONS FOR 2009 



Akbar, W., C. Carlton, and T.E. Reagan. 2009. Life cycle and larval morphology of Diomus 
terminatus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and its potential as a biological control agent of 
Melanaphis sacchari (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Annals of the Entomological Society of 
America. 102(1): 96-103. 

Akbar, W., J. Beuzelin, T.E. Reagan, A. Showier, M.O. Way, J. Trolinger. 2009. Chemical 
control of the Mexican rice borer in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, 2008. 
Arthropod Management Tests 34: F70. 

Alwala, S.; Kimbeng, C. A.; Veremis, J. C; Gravois, K. A.; Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 
Identification of molecular markers associated with sugar-related traits in a Saccharum 
interspecific cross. Euphytica, 2009, 167, 1, pp 127-142. 

Barbosa, R.N., J.L. Griffin, and C. A. Hollier. 2009. Effect of spray rate and method of 
application in spray deposition. Applied Engineering in Agriculture (ASABE) 
25(2): 181-1 84. 

Beuzelin, J.M., T.E. Reagan, W. Akbar, H. J. Cormier, J. W. Flanagan, and D.C. Blouin. 2009. 
Impact of Hurricane Rita storm surge on sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) 
management in Louisiana. Journal of Economic Entomology. 102(3): 1054-1061. 

Bischoff, K. P.; Gravois, K. A.; Reagan, T. E.; Hoy, J. W.; Laborde, C. M.; Kimbeng, C. A.; 

Hawkins, G. L.; Pontif, M. J.; Registration of 'L 99-226' sugarcane. Crop Science Society 
of America, Madison, USA, Journal of Plant Registrations, 2009, 3, 3, pp 241-247, 20. 

Boudreaux, J.M. and J.L. Griffin. 2009. Soybean planting configurations on fallowed sugarcane 
beds. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 29:1 10-1 18. 

Etheridge Jr., Luke M., James L. Griffin, and Michael E. Salassi, "Efficacy and Economics of 
Summer Fallow Conventional and Reduced-Tillage Programs for Sugarcane," Weed 
Technology, Vol 23, Issue 2, pp. 274-279, April- June 2009. 

Gravois, K. A.; Bischoff, K. P.; Hoy, J. W.; Reagan, T. E.; LaBorde, C. M.; Kimbeng, C. A.; 

Hawkins, G. L.; Pontif, M. J.; Registration of 'L 99-233' sugarcane. Crop Science Society 
of America, Madison, USA, Journal of Plant Registrations, 2009, 3, pp 248-252. 

Griffin, J.L. and W.A. Judice. 2009. Winter weed control in sugarcane. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane 
Technol. 29:128-136. 

Grisham, M.P., Eggleston, G., Hoy, J.W., and Viator, R.P. 2009. The effect of Sugarcane yellow 
leaf virus infection on yield of sugarcane in Louisiana. Sugar Cane Internat. 27:92-95. 

Gunderson, Michael A., Aaron Johnson, Michael E. Salassi, Cheryl S. DeVuyst, and Lonnie 

159 



Champagne, "Determining the Future for Louisiana Sugar Cane Products, Inc.: A Case 
Study Analyzing Vertical Coordination Options," Journal of Cooperatives, Vol. 22, pp. 
1-21,2009. 

Hoy, J.W., and Hollier, C.A. 2009. Effect of brown rust on yield of sugarcane in Louisiana. Plant 
Dis. 93:1171-1174. 

Johnson, R.and Viator, H. 2009. Variable-rate lime application for Louisiana sugarcane 

production systems. Joint International Agricultural Conference. Wageningen. Poster 
Abstr. p. 277. 

Jones, C.A. and J.L. Griffin. 2009. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control and 
competition in sugarcane. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 29:25-35. 

Kimbeng, C. A.; Zhou, M. M.; Silva, J. A. da. Genotype x environment interactions and resource 
allocation in sugarcane yield trials in the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas. American 
Society of Sugar Cane Technologists (ASSCT), Baton Rouge, USA, Journal - American 
Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2009, 29, pp 1 1-24, 20 ref. 

Legendre, Benjamin L., Michael E. Salassi, and Michael A. Deliberto, Prorated Allocated 

Planting Costs of Sugarcane: Plantcane, First-, Second-, and Third-Year Stubble, Crop 
Yiear - 2010, LSU Agricultural Center, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and 
Agribusiness, Staff Report No. 2009-24, October 2009. 

Mark, Tyler, Paul Darby and Michael Salassi, "Energy Cane Usage for Cellulosic Ethanol: 

Estimation of Feedstock Costs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, selected 
paper abstract, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 547, August 2009. 

Reagan, T.E., M.O. Way, J.M. Beuzelin, W. Akbar, B. Wilson. 2009. Ganado site visit: Mexican 
rice borer and sugarcane borer Sugarcane and rice research. LSU AgCenter Publication 
(cooperative with Texas A&M Beaumont Research Center). 46 pp. 

Salassi, M.E., F. G. Barker, and M. A. Deliberto "Optimal Scheduling of Sugarcane Harvest and 
Mill Delivery," Sugar Cane International, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 87-91, May- June 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., and Michael Deliberto Projected Costs and Returns - Sugarcane, Louisiana, 
2009, LSU Agricultural Center, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, 
A.E.A. Information Series No. 260 January 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., Current Status of U.S. Biofuel Industry and Opportunities for Louisiana 
Agriculture, LSU Agricultural Center, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and 
Agribusiness, Staff Report No. 2009-01, January 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Valuation of Growing Sugarcane Crops on a Farm Balance Sheet," The 
Sugar Bulletin, American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 13-14, January 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., and Michael Deliberto, 2009 Projected Sugarcane Production Farm Costs 
and Returns Model, LSU Agricultural Center, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and 

160 



Agribusiness, Staff Report No. 2009-03, January 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Projecting and Analyzing Sugarcane Costs and Returns," The Sugar 
Bulletin, American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 5, pp. 15-16, February 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Evaluating 2009 Plantcane Condition," The Sugar Bulletin, American 
Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 13-14, March 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Economic Aspects of Nitrogen Fertilization," The Sugar Bulletin, 
American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 7, pp. 15-16, April 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., and Benjamin L. Legendre, "Sugarcane Outlook," 2009 Outlook for 

Louisiana 's Agriculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Publication No. 
3048, pp. 18-21, April 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Louisiana Farm and Agri-Business Recovery Program," The Sugar 
Bulletin, American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 8, pp. 15-16, May 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Importance of Written Crop Leases," The Sugar Bulletin, American Sugar 
Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 9, pp. 1 5- 1 6, June 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., and Michael A. Deliberto, Agricultural Cropland Lease Structures for 
Major Row Crops in Louisiana - Statewide Survey Results, LSU Agricultural Center, 
Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Staff Report No. 2009-07, June 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Louisiana Crop Lease Survey Data," The Sugar Bulletin, American Sugar 
Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 10, pp. 13-14, July 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., and Michael A. Deliberto, Changes in Sugarcane Production Costs and 
Returns in Louisiana, 2004-2008, LSU Agricultural Center, Dept. of Agricultural 
Economics and Agribusiness, Staff Report No. 2009-12, July 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "New Sugar Farm Bill Provisions for 2009," The Sugar Bulletin, American 
Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 1 1, pp. 13-14, August 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "High World Sugar Prices Should Limit Imports into U.S.," The Sugar 
Bulletin, American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 12, pp. 13-14, September 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Estimating Variable Sugarcane Harvest Costs," The Sugar Bulletin, 
American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 17-18, October 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., and Michael A. Deliberto, Allocation of Louisiana Sugarcane Planting 
Costs in 2010, LSU Agricultural Center, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and 
Agribusiness, Staff Report No. 2009-23, October 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Allocating 2009 Sugarcane Planting Costs," The Sugar Bulletin, American 
Sugar Cane League, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 13-14, November 2009. 



161 



Salassi, Michael E., "Estimating Variable Sugarcane Harvest Costs," Sugar Journal, pp. 14-15, 
November 2009. 

Salassi, Michael E., "Understanding U.S. Sugar Demand," The Sugar Bulletin, American Sugar 
Cane League, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 15-16, December 2009. 

Teboh, J., J. Lofton, B. Tubana, S. Viator and K. Gravois. 2009. Estimating sugarcane yield and 
response to nitrogen fertilization with a ground based remote sensor. Poster presentation 
at the 2009 Nitrogen Use Efficiency Conference, W. Lafayette, IN, Aug. 4-6, 2009. 

Tew, Thomas L., and Michael E. Salassi, "Growing super-sweet sugarcane varieties makes 

economic sense," The Sugar Bulletin, American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 9, pp. 
21-23, June 2009. 

Tew, Thomas L., Michael E. Salassi, "Growing Super-sweet Sugarcane Varieties Makes Good 
Sense / Tiene Sentido Cultivar Variedades Excesivamente Dulces," Sugar Journal, Vol. 
72, No. 2, pp. 14-16, July 2009. 

Tubana, B., H. Viator, R. Johnson, J. Wang, J. Teboh, and M. Kongchum. 2009. Establishing the 
components of a remote sensor-based nitrogen decision tool for sugarcane production. In 
ASSCT Abstracts. American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Annual Meeting, 
Biloxi, MS, June 17-19, 2009. 

Tubana, B., H. Viator, R. Johnson, J. Teboh, and M. Kongchum. 2009. Estimating sugarcane 
yield potential and responsiveness to nitrogen fertilization using mid-season canopy 
reflectance. In Agronomy Abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI. 

Udeigwe, T.K., J.J. Wang, H. Viator, and L.A. Gaston. 2009. Surface water quality as affected 
by sugarcane residue management techniques. Water, Air and Soil Pollut. DOI 
10.1007/sl 1270-009-0153-2. 

Viator, H.P., Flanagan, Jimmy W., Gaston, Lewis A., Hall, Steven G., Hoy, Jeffrey W., Hymel, 
Thomas M., Legendre, Benjamin L., Wang, Jim Jian and Marvellous Zhou. 2009. The 
influence of post-harvest residue management on water quality and sugarcane yield. 
Journal of the American Society of Sugarcane Technologists 29:1-10. 

Waguespack, Jr., H., W. Jackson, N. Blackwelder, R. Viator, and M. Salassi, "Mechanical 
Planter Update: 2007 Bayou Teche Test: Plant Cane Results," The Sugar Bulletin, 
American Sugar Cane League, Vol. 87, No. 10, pp. 33-34, July 2009. 

Way, M.O., M.S. Nunez, R.A. Pearson, T.E. Reagan, and J.M. Beuzelin. 2009. Evaluation of 
selected insecticides for stalk borers, 2008. Arthropod Management Tests 34: F54. 



162